The Dodd-Frank Act was enacted on July 21, 2010.1 Section 165(i)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act (“section 165(i)(2)”) requires the Corporation, as a Federal primary financial regulatory agency, to issue regulations that require FDIC-insured state nonmember banks and FDIC-insured state-chartered savings associations with total consolidated assets of more than $10 billion to conduct annual stress tests. Additionally, section 165(i)(2) requires that the Corporation issue regulations that: (1) Define the term “stress test” for purposes of the regulations; (2) establish methodologies for the conduct of the stress tests that provide for at least three different sets of conditions, including baseline, adverse, and severely adverse conditions; (3) establish the form and content of a required report on the stress tests that covered banks must submit to the Corporation; and (4) require covered banks to publish a summary of the results of the required stress tests.

Section 165(i)(2)(C) requires the Corporation, in coordination with the Board of Governors and the Federal Insurance Office, to issue regulations implementing the stress testing requirements that are consistent and comparable with the other Federal primary financial regulatory agencies.2

On January 23, 2012, pursuant to section 165(i) of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Corporation issued a notice of proposed rulemaking in theFederal Registerthat proposed to require covered banks to conduct annual stress tests (“NPR” or “proposed rule”).3 The Corporation is now issuing a final rule implementing the requirements of section 165(i)(2) as proposed in the NPR, with certain modifications as described further below.

The NPR solicited public comment on all aspects of the proposed rule. The NPR's comment period ended on April 30, 2012, and resulted in the FDIC receiving 18 comment letters. Comments were submitted by, or on behalf of, individuals, banks and bank holding companies, consulting firms, and banking and financial services industry trade groups and associations. The comment letters generally supported the broader goals of the NPR, but many expressed concerns with respect to certain aspects of the proposed rule, as discussed in more detail below.

A number of commenters expressed concerns about the scope of the proposed rule and the need for coordination between the agencies in implementing the stress test requirements for various institutions. These commenters generally suggested that the agencies should seek comparability on their respective stress testing requirements and resolve some of the key differences between their respective proposals to ensure consistent and comparable stress testing for all covered financial institutions and to minimize regulatory burden.

The Corporation understands and is sensitive to commenters' concerns regarding the importance of issuing a consistent and comparable set of final stress testing rules across the banking agencies. The FDIC understands that there are a number of insured depository institutions subject to the stress testing final rules that may operate within organizational structures with regulated entities that may be supervised by different federal bankingregulators. The FDIC has developed this rule in coordination with the FRB and the Federal Insurance Office as required by section 165(i)(2)(C). Additionally, the FDIC has worked closely with the other banking agencies to ensure the standards of the final rule are consistent and comparable in the areas of: scope of application, scenarios, data collection and reporting, and disclosure. The Board and OCC have issued separate final stress test rules with respect to their supervised entities.

The NPR sought public comment on the timing of the proposed rule, both with respect to the proposed immediate effectiveness and the proposed time period allotted for completion of the stress tests.

With respect to the proposed effective date, several commenters recommended delayed effective dates based on the asset size of the bank. One commenter suggested a delayed effective date because, due to the complexity of the rule's stress testing requirements, regional and community banks would require additional time to build and effectuate the systems necessary to conduct testing. Another commenter noted that community banks have not participated in stress tests and have not experienced the supervisory expectations that accompany the stress testing process and therefore need additional time to comply with the proposed rule. Several commenters requested delaying the implementation of the proposed rule for at least one year.

The FDIC recognizes that a number of state nonmember banks and state savings associations are at different stages in developing their stress testing frameworks. Certain institutions may need additional time to fully develop their stress testing systems, processes, and procedures, and to collect the information that the FDIC may require in connection with these tests. After considering the comments, the FDIC has decided to delay implementation of the final rule for institutions with total consolidated assets of more than $10 billion but less than $50 billion until September 30, 2013, to ensure that these institutions have sufficient time to develop high-quality stress testing programs. Furthermore, the FDIC has decided to delay the initial public disclosure requirement for these institutions until the 2014 stress test (with the public disclosure to be made in 2015).

Most banks with consolidated assets of $50 billion or more have been involved in stress testing previously, including the 2009 Supervisory Capital Assessment Program (SCAP) and the Board's Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) stress tests, and consequently have in place a framework necessary to conduct the stress tests required by this rule. Given the size, complexity, and importance of these covered banks to the safety and soundness of the United States banking system, the FDIC believes it is appropriate for these covered banks to commence stress testing as soon as possible. Consequently, state nonmember banks and state savings associations with consolidated total assets equal to or exceeding $50 billion will be required to conduct their first annual stress tests under this final rule using financial data as of September 30, 2012.

The FDIC is aware, however, that some state nonmember banks and state savings associations with assets of $50 billion or more may not be able or ready to conduct the annual stress test this year in a manner that would yield meaningful results. For example, covered banks that were not subject to SCAP and CCAR may need more time to develop and implement a robust stress testing framework. Therefore, the FDIC is reserving authority in the rule to permit these covered banks to delay the application of the requirements under this final rule on a case-by-case basis.

The NPR sought public comment on the proposed time period allotted for completion of the stress tests. A number of comments were received expressing concern with respect to the proposed rule's timing for the annual stress test. Several commenters noted that the proposed rule would require covered banks to conduct stress tests during the busiest time of year for many institutions. Furthermore, one commenter argued that the narrow timeframe between the release of scenarios and the submission of the required reports could present timing issues for institutions, particularly smaller banks, in preparing year-end information. Additionally, several commenters requested that the Corporation provide flexibility with respect to when covered banks are required to perform stress tests. For example, one commenter recommended that covered banks be permitted to choose when they will conduct stress testing throughout the year, and also suggested that the Corporation should provide economic scenarios for the stress tests no later than September 30 of each calendar year.

After consideration of the comments, the FDIC has decided to make changes in the timeline in the final rule. The Corporation intends to distribute the scenarios to all covered banks no later than November 15 of each year, which aligns the development and issuance of the scenarios with the other agencies and which is approximately seven weeks prior to the date by which an over $50 billion covered bank must report the results of its annual stress test. The Corporation believes, based on its supervisory experience, that over $50 billion covered banks will have adequate time to carry out the required stress tests. For the $10 billion to $50 billion covered banks, the final rule extends the reporting date to March 31 of each year giving additional time to these institutions to conduct stress tests and report the results. The final rule also permits these institutions to report their stress test results under the same timeframe as their parent holding company.

The final rule states that a state nonmember bank or state savings association that becomes a covered bank after the final rule's effective date shall comply with the requirements of the final rule and conduct its stress test beginning in the calendar year after the date the state nonmember bank or state savings association becomes a covered bank. This modification to the proposed rule is in response to commenters' concerns that certain institutions have not previously been subject to stress-testing requirements and may need additional time to develop the systems and procedures, as well as information collection processes necessary to conduct these tests.

A number of the comments received by the Corporation raised concerns with respect to the development and use of economic scenarios within the proposed rule. For example, one commenter suggested that the scenarios should be realistic and robust enough to illuminate potential problems, and that, at a minimum, the “severely adverse” scenario should be as adverse as conditions were during the recent financial crisis. A trade association recommended that the scenarios address only general macroeconomic factors for institutions with between $10 billion and $50 billion in assets, while more complex institutions or those that have significant trading positions should incorporate rate “shocks” into their stress tests. Another commenter requested that the banking regulatorsand the bank mutually determine stress testing criteria that are tailored to a bank's specific business profile, including unique asset mixes and operating profiles, in order to avoid the distortions that a “one size fits all” approach would create.

Several commenters requested that banks with small geographic footprints be permitted to develop economic scenarios relevant to banks' regional operations. One such commenter argued that the requirements could become a costly “check the box” exercise if stress scenarios are not relevant to banks with small geographic footprints. The commenter also recommended that the Corporation provide guidance to banks for developing their own scenarios, including reports on regional economic outlooks.

A comment submitted jointly by a number of industry organizations requested that the Corporation and other federal banking agencies minimize the burden of the multiple and overlapping stress test requirements by consistently using the same set of supervisory stress scenarios and models for all stress-test requirements. The FDIC intends to coordinate with other federal banking agencies on the development of scenarios. To promote a consistent and transparent framework to support scenario design, the banking agencies anticipate seeking comment on the procedures to be used by the agencies in the development of the scenarios. With regard to commenters' requests to use their own internally generated scenarios, the FDIC believes that all covered banks should use the same set of scenarios so that the results are more directly comparable. However, to allow for unforeseen circumstances, the FDIC reserves the authority to require a covered bank to use different or additional scenarios that the FDIC deems appropriate.

Commenters also expressed concerns about the required reports that must be submitted to the Corporation under the proposed rule. For example, one commenter suggested that the Corporation's expectations for the required reports should be clear and simple enough so that institutions, particularly smaller banks, do not have to rely on vendors or third-party professionals to comply with the requirements.

A number of commenters suggested that it would be appropriate in certain situations to allow a covered bank that is a subsidiary of a bank holding company (that is itself subject to stress testing requirements) to submit a single report for both the bank and the bank holding company. One such commenter requested that the Corporation provide more comprehensive guidance with respect to the standards by which the company-run stress tests will be analyzed.

The FDIC recently proposed reporting templates for covered banks with consolidated assets of $50 billion or more.4 The Dodd-Frank Act stress testing reporting requirements apply to all covered banks, but the FDIC recognizes that many covered banks with consolidated total assets of $50 billion or more have been subject to stress testing requirements under the Board's CCAR or Capital Plan Review (CapPR) exercises. The FDIC also recognizes that these banks' stress tests will be applied to more complex portfolios and therefore warrant a broader set of reports to adequately capture the results of the company-run stress tests. These reports will necessarily require more detail than would be appropriate for smaller, less complex banks. Therefore, the FDIC will propose more simplified and separate reporting templates for institutions with total consolidated assets of more than $10 billion but less than $50 billion than for covered banks with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more. The general expectations for the proposed reporting requirements are discussed further below.

The FDIC reserves the authority to require a $10 billion to $50 billion covered bank to use the reporting template for larger banks. The FDIC may also, on a case-by-case basis, require a covered bank to report stress test results using a simpler format to be specified by the FDIC.

Many of the comments received by the Corporation addressed issues associated with the proposed rule's public disclosure requirement. Several commenters expressed concern that the publication of detailed stress test results could be misinterpreted by the general public which could, in turn, undermine public confidence in banks. One such commenter noted that the required public disclosure of results may be used for comparison across institutions, suggesting that regulators run the risk of creating an environment where banks present a conservative bias where there is flexibility in adopting test inputs.

Several commenters requested additional clarity with respect to the Corporation's expectations for the required summary public disclosure. One commenter noted that the company-run stress tests would not be standardized, and thus, comparison of results across various companies may not be possible. This commenter urged the Corporation to provide companies with a standardized template for disclosure that could enable a better understanding of the stress test results by the capital markets and the general public. Another commenter urged the Corporation to require small banks to disclose only a description of the types of risks being included in the stress test, a general description of the methodologies employed, and the capital ratios at the end of the planning horizon.

Two commenters recommended that the CCAR or CapPR disclosure templates be used for disclosure of the results of the severely adverse scenario for company-run stress tests, at least for covered banks with consolidated assets of $50 billion or more. One of these commenters supported not requiring the publication of summary results under the adverse scenario. Several commenters suggested that covered banks should not be required to disclose baseline stress test results or other information that could be used to reverse-engineer earnings guidance.

After careful consideration of the comments, the FDIC has decided to make the following changes. First, the public disclosure requirement will be delayed for an additional year for institutions with total consolidated assets of more than $10 billion but less than $50 billion so that these institutions will have additional time to develop robust stress testing methodologies before they report publicly. Therefore, these covered banks will conduct their required stress tests for the first time in 2013, with the first disclosure of a summary of stress test results occurring in 2015, based on the results of the 2014 stress tests. Covered banks with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more that are subject to this final rule as of the effective date of this final rule must conduct their first stress test this year, with disclosure required in 2013.

Institutions that become $10 billion to $50 billion covered banks after the effective date of the final rule would begin stress testing in the calendar year after they become covered banks. This is a change from the proposed rule, which would have required institutions to begin stress testing in the same calendar year if they became covered banks no less than 90 days before September 30 of that year. This change was in response to comments that requestedthat the Corporation's final rule be consistent with the OCC's and the Board's final rules under Section 165(i).

Additionally, the final rule removes the requirement that covered banks publicly disclose results under the baseline scenario and adverse scenario. The FDIC agrees with the commenters that publicly disclosing the above items under a baseline or adverse scenario could be construed as long-term earnings forecasts.

In addition to the issues identified above, the Corporation received a number of comments that addressed a wide range of other topics associated with the proposed rule. A number of commenters suggested establishing a threshold to determine when a covered bank that is a subsidiary of an institution that is itself subject to stress-testing requirements would be required to perform independent stress tests and comply with the requirements of the proposed rule. Commenters suggested that the proposed rule may create duplicative efforts when a subsidiary covered bank comprises greater than 90 percent of its holding company's total consolidated assets. One of these commenters suggested that in order to eliminate duplicate stress testing, the Corporation should accept the CCAR and the Board of Governors' Board FR Y-14A form submissions for annual stress tests of a covered bank that comprises greater than 90 percent of its bank holding company's total consolidated assets and that also serves as the lead depository institution for the bank holding company covered by the CCAR process.

Another commenter noted that the completion of the stress testing and related supervisory evaluation process should not hinder or delay covered banks' ability to take necessary strategic capital actions not otherwise set forth in previously approved capital plans. One of the comments received requested that the Corporation set forth a robust and transparent process for responding to inquiries in a timely manner and suggested that experienced examiners should offer instruction, assistances, and feedback to facilitate the good faith efforts of smaller banks to implement the proposed rule. This commenter also suggested that the Corporation offer a dedicated email address that banks could use to submit questions and receive answers in a timely manner.

The FDIC has carefully considered the comments and has made appropriate revisions to the final rule as described below.

The Corporation is now issuing this final rule to implement the requirements of section 165(i)(2) as proposed in the NPR, with certain modifications, as discussed below. Under this final rule, FDIC-insured state nonmember banks and FDIC-insured state-chartered savings associations with total consolidated assets of more than $10 billion would be required to conduct an annual stress test. The FDIC is delaying the application of the annual stress test requirements by one year for state nonmember banks and state-chartered savings associations with consolidated assets of more than $10 billion but less than $50 billion.

The FDIC views the stress tests conducted under the final rule as providing forward-looking information to supervisors to assist in their overall assessments of a covered bank's capital adequacy and to aid in identifying downside risks and the potential impact of adverse outcomes on the covered bank. In addition, the FDIC may use stress tests to determine whether additional analytical techniques and exercises are appropriate for a covered bank to employ in identifying, measuring, and monitoring risks to the financial soundness of the covered bank, and may require a covered bank to implement such techniques and exercises in conducting its stress tests. Further, these stress tests are expected to support ongoing improvement in a covered bank's internal assessments of capital adequacy and overall capital planning.

The FDIC expects that the annual stress tests required under the final rule will be only one component of the broader stress testing activities conducted by covered banks. In this regard, the FDIC notes that the agencies have recently issued final joint guidance on “Stress Testing for Banking Organizations with More Than $10 Billion in Total Consolidated Assets.”5 These broader stress testing activities should address the impact of a range of potentially adverse outcomes across a set of risk types affecting aspects of the covered bank's financial condition including, but not limited to, capital adequacy. In addition, a full assessment of a covered bank's capital adequacy should take into account a range of factors, including evaluation of its capital planning processes, the governance over those processes, regulatory capital measures, results of supervisory stress tests where applicable, and market assessments.

The final rule will apply to covered banks that are FDIC-insured state nonmember banks and FDIC-insured state savings associations with more than $10 billion in total consolidated assets. Covered banks will be required conduct stress in accordance with the requirements of the final rule. However, the final rule separates a “covered bank” into two categories: a state nonmember bank or state savings association that is either a $10 billion to $50 billion covered bank or an over $50 billion covered bank. The final rule defines a $10 billion to $50 billion covered bank as any state nonmember bank or state savings association with average total consolidated assets that are greater than $10 billion but less than $50 billion. The final rule defines an over $50 billion covered bank as any state nonmember bank or state savings association with average total consolidated assets that are not less than $50 billion. The stress testing, reporting, and disclosure requirements, and deadlines of the final rule differ depending on whether the covered bank is a $10 billion to $50 billion covered bank or an over $50 billion covered bank.

The FDIC recognizes that some covered bank subsidiaries may be affiliated with larger institutions also subject to requirements for stress testing, reporting, and disclosure. In such cases, it may be less burdensome and more appropriate for the covered bank subsidiaries to follow the timing requirements of their parent holding companies. The final rule permits covered bank subsidiaries to choose to conduct their stress tests using the same timeline requirements as their parent holding companies.

A state nonmember bank or state savings association becomes a covered bank for purposes of the final rule based on its total consolidated assets averaged over each of the institution's four most recent consecutive quarters as reported on its Call Reports. The date on which a state nonmember bank or state savings association becomes a covered bank is the as-of date of the fourth consecutive Call Report in which its reported average total consolidated assets are greater than $10 billion. Similarly, a covered bank will remained subject to the stress testing requirements of the final rule until it has $10 billion or less in total consolidated assets for each of the four most recent consecutive quarters as reported in the coveredbank's four most recently filed Call Reports. Public comments requested that the Corporation's final rule be consistent with the OCC's and the Board's final rules under Section 165(i). Therefore, in order to maintain consistency with the OCC's and the Board's final rules and to provide clarity in the application of standards of coverage, the Corporation will use the measure described in the final rule to determine whether an institution meets the definition of a covered bank and at which point a state nonmember bank or state savings association ceases to be a covered bank.

The date by which a state nonmember bank or state savings association must conduct its first annual stress test under this final rule depends on its size category and whether it becomes a covered bank before or after the effective date of this final rule. A state nonmember bank or state savings association that is subject to this final rule as of October 15, 2012 must conduct the annual stress test under this final rule beginning this year if it is an over $50 billion covered bank, whereas a $10 billion to $50 billion covered bank would conduct its first annual stress test in 2013. Further, the final rule requirement for public disclosure of a summary of the stress testing results for a $10 billion to $50 billion covered bank will not occur until the 2014 stress test.

A state nonmember bank or state savings association that becomes a covered bank after October 15, 2012 would be required to conduct its first annual stress test in the calendar year following the year in which it becomes a covered bank. For example, a bank for which the four-quarter average of total consolidated assets exceeded $10 billion on its June 2013 Call Report (based on the average from its September 2012, December 2012, March 2013, and June 2013 Call Reports) would become a covered bank on June 30, 2013, and would conduct their first stress test in 2014.

When a covered bank comprises the bulk of the assets for a given parent holding company, the inputs to the stress tests conducted by that institution and the holding company, and the conclusions reached, would be expected to be similar. The FDIC expects to take this into account in applying the requirements of this rule. For example, for a holding company that is essentially a shell holding company with a single state nonmember or state savings association that has total consolidated assets of more than $10 billion, the Board and the FDIC would coordinate efforts and communicate with the holding company and the covered bank on how to adequately address their respective stress testing requirements while avoiding duplication of effort.

The FDIC recognizes that certain parent company structures may include one or more subsidiary banks or savings associations, each with total consolidated assets greater than $10 billion. The stress test requirements of section 165(i)(2) apply to the parent company and to each subsidiary bank or savings association of the covered company that has $10 billion or more in total consolidated assets. The FDIC anticipates addressing, on a case-by-case basis through the supervisory process, instances in which it may be appropriate to modify stress testing requirements when there are multiple covered banks within a single parent organization.

Under the final rule, each covered bank would be required to conduct an annual stress test using its financial data as of September 30 of that year, unless the FDIC communicates, in the fourth quarter of that year, a different required as-of date for any or all categories of financial data. Additionally, the Corporation could accelerate or extend any specified deadline for stress testing if the Corporation determined that such modification is appropriate in light of the institution's activities, level of complexity, scope of operations, risk profile, or regulatory capital.

The stress test must assess the potential impact of different scenarios on the capital of the covered bank and certain related items over a forward-looking, nine-quarter planning horizon (that is, through the December 31 reporting date of the second calendar year following the year containing the September 30 as-of date), taking into account all relevant exposures and activities.

The FDIC will provide a minimum of three economic scenarios, (baseline, adverse, and severely adverse), or such additional scenarios as the FDIC determines appropriate, no later than November 15, which the covered bank must use for the stress test. While each scenario includes the paths of a number of economic variables that are typically considered in stress test models, the FDIC expects that covered banks may use all or a subset of the economic variables provided, and may extrapolate other variables (such as local economic variables) from the paths of the economic variables provided, as appropriate, to conduct the stress test.

The FDIC may require a covered bank to include one or more additional scenarios in its stress test based on the institutions activities, level of complexity, risk profiles, scope of operations and regulatory capital, in addition to any other relevant factors. The FDIC will notify the institution in writing that it will be required to include one or more additional scenarios in its stress test, and the notification will include a description of the scenario and the basis for requiring the institution to include the scenario in its stress test.

The FDIC has established provisions within the final rule that apply to covered banks having significant trading activities. For those covered banks, an additional trading and counterparty risk scenario may be included as a component of their stress test scenarios. The FDIC will select an as-of date between October 1 and December 1 of that calendar year for the trading and counterparty risk scenario which will be communicated to the covered bank no later than December 1. This provision is necessary to allow the FDIC to tailor the scenarios and other stress test requirements for those covered banks to ensure that the stress tests provide a meaningful identification of downside risks and assessment of the potential impact of adverse outcomes on the covered bank's capital. Typically, the scenarios would include market price and rate “shocks” consistent with historical or hypothetical adverse market events.

The FDIC expects that the annual stress test scenarios will be revised from time to time to ensure that each scenario remains relevant under current economic and industry conditions. The FDIC will consult closely with the Board and OCC on the development of the annual stress test scenarios to ensure consistent and comparable stress tests for all covered financial institutions and to minimize regulatory burden.

The FDIC expects to issue for comment proposed guidance and procedures for scenario development at a later date.

The final rule requires each covered bank to use the annual stress test scenarios provided by the FDIC in conducting its annual stress tests. Each covered bank must use a planning horizon of at least nine quarters over which the impact of specified scenarios would be assessed. The nine-quarter planning horizon would permit the covered bank to make informed projections of its financial and capitalpositions for a two-calendar-year period. The covered bank is required to calculate, for each quarter-end within the planning horizon, estimates of losses, pre-provision net revenues, net income, and provision for loan and lease losses that result from the conditions specified in each scenario. Such a covered bank also is required to calculate, for each quarter-end within the planning horizon, the potential impact on its capital levels and regulatory capital ratios applicable to the institution under 12 CFR Part 325 (and any other capital ratios specified by the Corporation), incorporating the effects of any expected capital actions over the planning horizon.

The final rule also requires the senior management of each covered bank to establish and maintain a system of controls, oversight, and documentation, including policies and procedures, designed to ensure that the stress testing processes used by the covered bank are effective in meeting the requirements of the final rule. The covered bank's policies and procedures must, at a minimum, outline the covered bank's stress testing practices and methodologies, and processes for validating and updating its stress testing practices consistent with applicable laws, regulations and supervisory guidance.6 The covered bank's board of directors (or a committee thereof) must approve and review the policies and procedures of the stress testing processes as frequently as economic conditions may warrant, but no less than annually. The covered bank's board of directors and senior management must receive a summary of the results of the annual stress test.

Section 165(i)(2)(B) requires a covered bank to submit a report to the Board and its primary financial regulatory agency at such time, in such form, and containing such information as the primary financial regulatory agency shall require. Section 165(i)(2)(C)(iv) mandates that the primary financial regulatory agencies require a covered bank to publish a summary of its stress test results.

The final rule requires that each over $50 billion covered bank submit a report of the stress test results and documentation to the FDIC and to the Board by January 5. The FDIC published for notice and comment specific annual stress test reporting requirements for over $50 billion covered banks in a separate information collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).7 The Corporation plans to publish for comment separately the required report for covered banks with total consolidated assets of more than $10 billion but less than $50 billion. For $10 billion to $50 billion covered banks, the final rule requires that each bank submit a report of the stress test results to the FDIC and to the Board by March 31.

The confidentiality of information submitted to the Corporation under the final rule will be determined in accordance with applicable law including any available exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)) and the FDIC's Rules and Regulations regarding the Disclosure of Information (12 CFR Part 309).

Based on information submitted by a covered bank in the required report to the Corporation, as well as other relevant information, the Corporation will conduct an analysis of the quality of the bank's stress test processes and related results. The Corporation envisions that feedback concerning such analysis will be provided to a covered bank through the supervisory process. In addition, each covered bank must consider the results of the stress tests conducted under the final rule in the normal course of business including, but not limited to, the banking organization's capital planning, assessment of capital adequacy, and risk management practices. The Corporation may also require other actions consistent with safety and soundness of the covered bank.

Consistent with section 165(i)(2), the final rule also requires each covered bank to publish a summary of the results of its annual stress tests after submitting its annual stress test report to the FDIC and the Board. Under the final rule, a $10 billion to $50 billion covered bank must publish a summary of the results of its annual stress test from the period beginning on June 15 and ending June 30 and an over $50 billion covered bank must publish its summary disclosures from the period beginning on March 15 and ending on March 31.

The timing of the disclosures in the final rule has changed from the timing sequence proposed in the NPR. The proposed rule would have required all disclosures to be made no later than April 5. The final rule extends the disclosure due date for $10 billion to $50 billion covered banks to June 30. Therefore, this final rule replaces the specific disclosure due date with a 15-day period in which disclosures must be made. This change ensures adequate time for review of stress test results prior to disclosure.

The summary may be published on a covered bank's Web site or any other forum that is reasonably accessible to the public. The required information publicly disclosed by each covered bank for the severely adverse scenario, at a minimum, includes:

i. A description of the types of risks being included in the stress test;

ii. A summary description of the methodologies used in the stress test;

iii. Estimates of aggregate losses, pre-provision net revenue, net income, provision for loan and lease losses, capital ratios (including regulatory and any other capital ratios specified by the FDIC); and

iv. An explanation of the most significant causes for the changes in regulatory capital ratios, such as the amount of losses attributable to a particular portfolio.

Covered banks that are consolidated subsidiaries of a bank holding company or savings and loan holding company will be permitted to publish abbreviated disclosures with the parent's summary and on the same timeline as the parent holding company. These disclosures will include a summary of changes in regulatory capital ratios of the depository institution subsidiary over the planning horizon, including an explanation of the most significant causes for changes in regulatory capital ratios, such as the amount of losses attributable to a particular portfolio. However, the FDIC reserves the right to require additional disclosures if the FDIC believes that the disclosures at the holding company level do not accurately capture the potential impact of the scenarios on the condition of the covered bank.

The table below describes the steps and timeframes for the annual stress test for covered banks.

The final rule will be effective immediately upon publication in theFederal Register. Section 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) provides that publication of a rule shall be made not less than 30 days before its effective date, except “* * * (3) as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” Consistent with section 553(d)(3) and for the reasons discussed below, the FDIC finds good cause exists to publish this final rule with an immediate effective date.9

The FDIC believes the final rule is necessary to address the continuing exposure of the banking industry to potentially adverse economic conditions. The FDIC expects that all covered banks should have the capacity to understand their risks and the potential impact of stressful events and circumstances on their financial condition. The stress test requirements contained in the final rule will help covered banks and the FDIC to better understand such banks' financial condition in stressed environments, including the potential impact on covered banks' capital adequacy. Further, stress tests serve as an ongoing risk management tool that supports a covered bank's forward-looking assessment of its risks and better equips such organizations to address a range of adverse outcomes. As adverse economic conditions can occur quickly, the process of stress testing needs to begin promptly. Ensuring that covered banks are prepared for adverse economic situations is essential for their health and the overall financial stability of the economy. Accordingly, the FDIC finds good cause for the final rule to take effect immediately upon publication in theFederal Register.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) (“PRA”) prohibits the Corporation from conducting or sponsoring, and respondents are not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) control number. In accordance with the PRA, the Corporation published notice of the proposed information collection for over $50 billion covered banks on August 30, 2012.10 Following the close of the sixty-day comment period associated with the Corporation's proposed information collection notice, the Corporation will review the public comments and submit a proposed information collection to the OMB director for approval. If approved, covered banks would then be subject to the Corporation's stress test reporting requirements contained in the final rule. Additionally, prior to the 2013 stress test, the Corporation intends to publish in theFederal Registera proposed information collection notice for $10 billion to $50 billion covered banks.

Title of Information Collection:Annual Stress Test Reporting Template and Documentation for Covered Banks under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

For over $50 billion covered banks, following the close of the sixty-day comment period associated with the Corporation's proposed information collection notice, the Corporation will submit its proposed information collection to the OMB director for approval. For $10 billion to $50 billion covered banks, the Corporation will submit a proposed information collection to OMB following the publication and 60-day comment period of a proposed information collection notice for $10 billion to $50 billion covered banks.

OMB Number:3064-0187.

Frequency of Response:Annually.

Affected Public:State nonmember banks and state savings associations supervised by the Corporation with more than $10 billion in total consolidated assets.

Estimated Total Burden (includes all covered banks):

The estimated burden for the reporting and disclosure requirements is as follows:

Abstract:The information collection requirements are found in sections 325.205, 325.206, and 325.207 of the final rule. These requirements implement the stress testing and stress testing reporting requirements set forth in Section 165(i) of the Dodd-Frank Act. Section 325.205(a) identifies the calculations of the potential impact oncapital that must be made during each quarter of the planning horizon. Section 325.205(c) requires that each covered bank must establish and maintain a system of controls, oversight, and documentation, including policies and procedures that describe the covered bank's stress test practices and methodologies, as well as processes for updating such bank's stress test practices. Section 325.206 sets forth the requirements for stress test reports to be filed annually with the Corporation and the Board in the time, manner, and form specified by the Corporation. Section 325.207 requires that a covered bank must publish a summary of the results of its annual stress tests. The summary must include a description of the types of risks being included in the stress test, a summary description of the methodologies used in the stress test, and estimates of losses, pre-provision net revenue, provision for loan and lease losses, net income and pro forma capital ratios (including regulatory and any other capital ratios specified by the FDIC) over the planning horizon, under the severely adverse scenario.

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”),11 the regulatory flexibility analysis otherwise required under section 604 of the RFA is not required if an agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (defined for purposes of the RFA to include banks with assets less than or equal to $175 million)12 and publishes its certification and a short, explanatory statement in theFederal Registeralong with its rule. For the reasons provided below, the FDIC certifies that the final rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Since the final rule applies only to state nonmember banks and state savings associations with more than $10 billion in total consolidated assets, the Corporation does not expect that the final rule will directly affect a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act13 requires federal banking agencies to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. The Corporation sought to present the proposed rule in a simple and straightforward manner and invited comment on how to make the proposed rule easier to understand. The FDIC received no comments on the use of plain language.

Section 302 of Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act (“RCDRIA”) generally requires that regulations prescribed by federal banking agencies which impose additional reporting, disclosures or other new requirements on insured depository institutions take effect on the first day of a calendar quarter which begins on or after the date on which the regulations are published in final form unless an agency finds good cause that the regulations should become effective sooner. The final rule will be effective immediately upon publication in theFederal Register. The first day of a calendar quarter which begins on or after the date on which the regulations are published will be January 1, 2013. Accordingly, the FDIC invokes the good cause exception to the publication requirement because the final rule is necessary to address the continuing exposure of the banking industry to potentially adverse economic factors. For the same reasons discussed in support of the good cause waiver from the 30-day delayed effective date required by the APA, the FDIC finds that good cause exists for an immediate effective date for the final rule.

The Office of Management and Budget has determined that the final rule is not a “major rule” within the meaning of the relevant sections of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 199614 (“SBREFA”). As required by SBREFA, the FDIC will file the appropriate reports with Congress and the Government Accountability Office so that the final rule may be reviewed.

The Corporation amends part 325 of chapter III of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (FDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference in the amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and § 97.20 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in theFederal Registerexpensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained in FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAP and the corresponding effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP as modified by FDC/P-NOTAMs.

The SIAPs, as modified by FDC P-NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard forTerminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for all these SIAP amendments requires making them effective in less than 30 days.

Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97, 14 CFR part 97, is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulators description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA Forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.

The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, in addition to their complex nature and the need for a special format make publication in theFederal Registerexpensive and impractical. Furthermore, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. The advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA forms is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAPs and the effective dates of the associated Takeoff Minimums and ODPs. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as contained in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPS and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPS and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedures before adopting these SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule ” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and/or Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0902 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

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

The revisions to the Filer Manual reflect changes within Volume I entitled EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume I: “General Information,” Version 14 (October 2012) and Volume II entitled EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II: “EDGAR Filing,” Version 21 (October 2012). The updated manual will be incorporated by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations.

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

The EDGAR system will be upgraded to Release 12.2 on October 1, 2012 and will introduce the following changes: EDGAR will be updated to support public dissemination of the confidential draft registration statements, submission types DRS and DRS/A. Issuers that submitted draft registrations either under the JOBS Act or the Division of Corporation Finance's foreign private issuer policy will be able to disseminate their previously submitted draft registration statements. A new correspondence type, DRSLTR, will be available to submit any correspondences related to draft registration statements. The options to disseminate draft registration statements as well as to create DRSLTR submissions can be accessed by selecting the “Draft Reg. Statement” link on the EDGAR Filing Web site.

Form ID application will be updated with “JOBS Act § 106” or “Foreign Private Issuer Policy” options to allow applicants to indicate that they are submitting an application for EDGAR access to file draft registration statements. These options will replace the “Access codes will be used to submit draft registration statement” check box.

Submission form types 8-K, 8-K/A, 8-K12B, 8-K12B/A, 8-K12G3, 8-K12G3/A, 8-K15D5, and 8-K15D5/A will allow a future period date up to the next business date from the date of submission, if the time of submission isbetween 05:31 p.m. EST and 10:00 p.m. EST.

EDGAR will be updated to allow filers to submit, on a voluntary basis, copies of litigation documents pursuant to Section 33 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (submission types 40-33 and 40-33/A) in Portable Document Format (PDF) as an official filing format. EDGAR will continue to allow ASCII and HTML as official filing formats for submission types 40-33 and 40-33/A.

Starting October 1, 2012, filers initiating FEDWIRE transactions to make deposits to pay their filing fees will need to use a new US Treasury beneficiary account number (850000001001), as well as a new American Bank Association (ABA) number and bank name for the receiving bank (021030004/TREAS NYC). The current bank account number (152307768324) and receiving bank ABA number and name (081000210/US BANK) will be invalid from this date forward. Filer may obtain the new US Treasury account number and ABA number from the notice posted on the “Information for EDGAR Filers” web page prior to October 1, 2012 and by accessing the updated “Instructions for Wire Transfer (FEDWIRE) and Check Payment of SEC Filing Fees” by logging onto the EDGAR Filing Web site and accessing the “Fees” link on the EDGAR menu thereafter.

The new online version of Form N-SAR, originally planned for deployment on July 9, 2012, has been delayed and will not go into production any sooner than January 14th 2013. The specific deployment date will be announced on the Commission's public Web site's “Information for EDGAR Filers” page (http://www.sec.gov/info/edgar.shtml). Filers should continue to use the EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume III: N-SAR Supplement to file their N-SAR submissions. When the online version of Form N-SAR is deployed, EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume III: N-SAR Supplement will be retired. Instructions to file the online version of Form N-SAR addressed in Chapter 9 of EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II: EDGAR Filing should then be followed.

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

You may obtain paper copies of the updated Filer Manual at the following address: Public Reference Room, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Room 1543, Washington DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. We will post electronic format copies on the Commission's Web site; the address for the Filer Manual ishttp://www.sec.gov/info/edgar.shtml.

Since the Filer Manual and the corresponding rule changes relate solely to agency procedures or practice, publication for notice and comment is not required under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).4 It follows that the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act5 do not apply.

The effective date for the updated Filer Manual and the rule amendments is October 15, 2012. In accordance with the APA,6 we find that there is good cause to establish an effective date less than 30 days after publication of these rules. The EDGAR system upgrade to Release 12.2 is scheduled to become available on October 1, 2012. The Commission believes that establishing an effective date less than 30 days after publication of these rules is necessary to coordinate the effectiveness of the updated Filer Manual with the system upgrade.

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

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

On March 26, 2012, OSHA published a final rule that aligned the existing HCS with the United Nations Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals that benefits workers by reducing confusion about chemical hazards in the workplace, facilitating safety training and improving the understanding of hazards, especially for low literacy workers. The final rule revised existing collection of information (paperwork) requirements that were approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under PRA-95, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and OMB's regulations at 5 CFR part 1320.

Hazard communication is currently addressed by many different international, national, and State authorities. These existing requirements are not always consistent and often contain different definitions of hazards and varying provisions for what information is required on labels and safety data sheets (SDSs). The final standard harmonizes the U.S. system with international norms and as a result would enhance worker safety and facilitate international trade. The final rule's modifications to the Hazard Communication Standard's collection of information requirements include: (1) Revised criteria for classification of chemical hazards; (2) revised labeling provisions that include requirements for use of standardized signal words, pictograms, hazard statements, and precautionary statements; (3) a specified format for SDSs; and (4) related revisions to definitions of terms used in the Standard and to requirements for employee training on labels and SDSs.

As required by PRA-95, theFederal Registernotice for the Hazard Communication final rule stated that the Department of Labor would publish a notice in theFederal Registerannouncing the results of OMB's reviews. On March 26, 2012, OSHA submitted a revised Hazard Communication ICR for the final rule to OMB for approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). On June 11, 2012, OMB approved the revised collections of information contained in the final rule. This approval expires on June 30, 2015.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), OMB approved the collections of information contained in the HCS, and assigned these collections of information OMB control number 1218-0072. This approval expires on June 30, 2015. In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.5(b), an Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person need not respond to, a collection of information unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. Also, notwithstanding any other provision of law, no employer shall be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912).

PBGC's regulation on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR Part 4022) prescribes actuarial assumptions—including interest assumptions—for paying plan benefits under terminating single-employer plans covered by title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The interest assumptions in the regulation are also published on PBGC's Web site (http://www.pbgc.gov).

PBGC uses the interest assumptions in Appendix B to Part 4022 to determine whether a benefit is payable as a lump sum and to determine the amount to pay. Appendix C to Part 4022 contains interest assumptions for private-sector pension practitioners to refer to if they wish to use lump-sum interest rates determined using PBGC's historical methodology. Currently, the rates in Appendices B and C of the benefit payment regulation are the same.

The interest assumptions are intended to reflect current conditions in the financial and annuity markets. Assumptions under the benefit payments regulation are updated monthly. This final rule updates the benefit payments interest assumptions for November 2012.1

The November 2012 interest assumptions under the benefit payments regulation will be 0.75 percent for the period during which a benefit is in pay status and 4.00 percent during any years preceding the benefit's placement in pay status. In comparison with the interest assumptions in effect for October 2012, these interest assumptions are unchanged.

PBGC has determined that notice and public comment on this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This finding is based on the need to determine and issue new interest assumptions promptly so that the assumptions can reflect current market conditions as accurately as possible.

Because of the need to provide immediate guidance for the payment of benefits under plans with valuation dates during November 2012, PBGC finds that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication.

PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866.

Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).

In consideration of the foregoing, 29 CFR part 4022 is amended as follows:

Background and Purpose

In 2007, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) embarked on a comprehensive review of the entire STCW Convention and STCW Code. The Parties adopted amendments on June 25, 2010 at the STCW Diplomatic Conference in Manila, Philippines, and the amendments entered into force for all ratifying countries on January 1, 2012.

The STCW Convention is not self-implementing; therefore, the U.S., as a signatory to the Convention, must initiate regulatory changes to ensure full implementation of the amendments to the STCW Convention and STCW Code. The U.S. implements these provisions under the Convention and under the authority of United States domestic laws in United States Code Titles 5, 14, 33, 46, and pursuant to 46 CFR, Chapter I, Subchapter B.

The Coast Guard published a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) on August 1, 2011 (76 FR 45908), proposing changes to implement the STCW Convention and Code, to address the comments received from the public in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published on November 17, 2009 (74 FR 59354), and to incorporate the 2010 amendments to the STCW Convention that came into force on January 1, 2012. The public comment period for the SNPRM ended on September 30, 2011. The Coast Guard intends to publish a final rule to implement amendments to the STCW, including the 2010 amendments, and ensure that the U.S. is meeting its obligations under the Convention.

The following three policy letters provide guidance to parties affected by STCW:

This policy letter provides guidance to clarify the changes associated with the hours of rest requirements found within the 2010 amendments to the STCW Convention and Code. This policy will provide information on the changes to the hours of rest requirements that are now being monitored internationally. It also provides recommended methods to lessen the port state control impact on U.S. vessels while operating abroad until the Coast Guard promulgates the final rule implementing STCW.

This policy letter provides guidance on the issuance of endorsements and approval of training for Vessel Personnel with Designated Security Duties and vessel personnel requiring security awareness training under the 2010 amendments to the STCW Convention and Code. The IMO has provided an alternative means of compliance until January 1, 2014, and the Coast Guard has determined that the requirements in 33 CFR 104.220 and 104.225 can be used to comply with the 2010 amendments under this alternative. Endorsements will be issued based upon the documentary evidence that an individual has complied with existing regulations.

This policy letter provides guidance on issuance of endorsements other than the security endorsements discussed above, and approval of other related training to meet the 2010 amendments to the STCW Convention and Code. The guidance in this document is intended to assist industry and individual mariners to meet the requirements of STCW and 46 CFR, Chapter I, Subchapter B. This policy provides methods for issuing STCW endorsements established by the 2010 amendments that may be obtained by meeting current domestic requirements. In addition to the information regarding the STCW endorsements, the policy letter announces that the Coast Guard will consider granting approval of training to meet various provisions of the 2010 amendments.

This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and United States Code Titles 5, 14, 33, 46.

On May 8, 2012, we published in theFederal Registera notice of proposed rulemaking (NPMR) entitled Inland Waterways Navigation Regulations (77 FR 27007). We received 1 comment. Specifically, Lake Carriers' Association (LCA) submitted a letter on May 15, 2012 in which LCA offered its full support for this rulemaking as proposed in the NPRM. No other comments were received. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

As discussed in the aforesaid NPRM, representatives from LCA, the Lakes Pilots Association, the International Shipmasters Association, and the Canadian Shipowners Association previously made a request of the Coast Guard regarding 33 CFR Part 162. Particularly, these groups requested that the Coast Guard amend, via federal rulemaking, 33 CFR 162.138(a)(1)(ii), which requires vessels on the Detroit River north of the Detroit River Light to operate at no more than 12 statute miles per hour. In response to that request, the Coast Guard's Ninth District Commander, in consultation with the Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit, Windsor Port Authority, Transport Canada, and the Canadian Coast Guard, assessed the necessity and utility of the aforementioned regulatory provision and determined that the southern point of the restricted speed area in 33 CFR 162.138(a)(1)(ii) should be relocated to a point approximately 2.5 statute miles to the north at the D33 stationary light. The reasoning for the Ninth District Commander's decision is discussed in the following paragraph.

The speed restriction in 33 CFR 162.138(a)(1)(ii) requires vessels on the Detroit River north of the Detroit River Light to operate at no more than 12 statute miles per hour. This restriction serves two purposes. First, it is intended to prevent collisions and groundings. (See 33 CFR 162.130(a)). Second, it is intended to limit wake damage to vessels and shore structures (See 60 FR 35701-01). Because the Detroit River Light is several miles into Lake Erie and because the channel between the Detroit River Light and the D33 stationary light is roughly twelve-hundred feet wide, the Ninth District Commander has determined that limiting speed south of the D33 stationary light is not necessary to prevent wake damage or to prevent collisions and groundings. Thus, 33 CFR 162.138(a)(1)(ii), as currently written, serves as an unnecessary restriction on vessel operations. Moreover, this unnecessary restriction is exacerbated by the fact that upbound vessels must decelerate well in advance of the Detroit River Light in order to attain the maximum speed at the light itself.

Pursuant to the authority contained in the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, (33 U.S.C. 1221et seq.), as delegated to the Commandant of the Coast Guard via Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1 and to Coast Guard District Commanders pursuant to 33 CFR 1.05-1(e)(1)(vii), the Ninth District Commander is amending 33 CFR 162.138(a)(1)(ii) to alleviate unnecessary restrictions on commercial vessel operations.

As mentioned above, only one comment was received in response to the NPRM published on May 8, 2012. In that comment, LCA offered its full support for the proposed rulemaking.

This Final Rule is identical to the rule proposed in that NPRM. As stated in the NPRM, because 33 CFR 162.138, as currently written, unnecessarily restricts commercial vessel operations, the Ninth District Commander is amending 33 CFR 162.138 to reduce the size of the restricted speed area currently delineated in 33 CFR 162.138(a)(1)(ii). Particularly, this rule relocates the southern point of the restricted speed area from its current location at the Detroit River Light to a new location near the D33 stationary light.

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

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of 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 proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action because relocating the southern point of the restricted speed area delineated in 33 CFR 162.138(a)(1)(ii) will lessen navigation restrictions on the public and on private industry. Thus, we anticipate that it will not adversely affect 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 Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would 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 and operators of vessels intending to transit between the Detroit River Light and the D33 stationary. However, the relocation of the southern point of the restricted speed area delineated in 33 CFR 162.138(a)(1)(ii) will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it will lessen navigation restrictions on the public and private industry.

In keeping with 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 AgricultureRegulatory 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 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 amendments to navigation regulations and thus, is categorically excluded under paragraph 34(i) of the Commandant Instruction. A Categorical Exclusion Determination (CED) and a preliminary environmental analysis checklist 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 proposed rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR Part 162 as follows:

Table of Acronyms DHSDepartment of Homeland Security FRFederal Register NPRMNotice of Proposed Rulemaking RNARegulated Navigation Area I. Regulatory History and Information

On July 25, 2012, we published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) entitled USCG-2012-0191 in theFederal Register(73 FR 2012-18151). We received no comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in theFederal Register. Our experience in administering the current Biscayne Bay Columbus Day regulated navigation area (RNA), established in 2011 and contained in 33 CFR 165.779, persuaded us that altering the dimensions of the RNA and slightly extending the hours of its enforcement is necessary to better protect the public. During this period, numerous vessels concentrate on the waters of Biscayne Bay during the high traffic hours of Columbus Day weekend. This rule is necessary to protect the public on this congested waterway, including during Columbus Day 2012. Under these circumstances, it would be contrary to the public interest in maintaining safety in Biscayne Bay to delay the effective date of the final.

The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish regulated navigation areas and other limited access areas: 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.

The purpose of the rule is to ensure the safe transit of vessels and to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment within the regulated navigation area during the Columbus Day weekend.

While no comments were receiving following the NPRM, the final rule has been modified by clarifying that Columbus Day weekend is the weekend preceding the second Monday of October.

This final rule revises the existing Biscayne Bay Columbus Day RNA in 33 CFR 165.779 by altering the RNA's boundaries and revising the enforcement period, extending it by two hours into the early morning of Columbus Day. The revised RNA encompasses certain waters of Biscayne Bay between Rickenbacker Causeway Bridge and Coon Point on Elliot Key in Miami, Florida.

All vessels within the regulated navigation area are: (1) Required to transit the area at no more than 15 knots; (2) subject to control by the Coast Guard; and (3) required to follow the instructions of all law enforcement vessels in the area.

The regulated navigation area is necessary to ensure the safety of the public during a time of heightened vessel traffic in the aforementioned area. Each year numerous recreation vessels, which include an annual sailing regatta, congregate in the waters of Biscayne Bay during Columbus Day weekend. The close proximity of numerous vessels within the proposed regulated navigation area during Columbus Day weekend poses a hazardous condition.

The regulated navigation area will result in the transiting of vessels at a reduced speed, thereby significantly reducing the threat of vessel collisions. Requiring vessels within the regulated navigation area to transit at no more than 15 knots will also enable law enforcement officials to identify, respond to, query, and stop operators who may pose a hazard to other vessels in the area. Nothing in this regulation alleviates the requirement for vessel operators from complying with all other federal, state, and local laws in the area, including manatee slow speed zones.

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 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 economic impact of this rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The regulated navigation area will be enforced for less than 2 days each year; (2) although, during the enforcement period, vessels are required to transit the area at no more than 15 knots, be subjected to control by the Coast Guard, and be required to follow the instructions of all law enforcement vessels in the area, the regulated navigation area does not prohibit vessels from transiting the area; (3) vessels will still be able operate in surrounding waters that are not encompassed within the regulated navigation area without the restrictions imposed by the regulated navigation area; and (4) advance notification of the regulated navigation area will be made to the local maritime community via Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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

This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the regulated navigation area from 12:01 p.m. on Saturday until 2 a.m. on Monday on the weekend preceding the federally recognized holiday of Columbus Day occurring annually on the secondMonday in October. For the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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 States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in 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 concluded this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves establishing a regulated navigation area to ensure the safe transit of vessels and to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment within the regulated navigation area during the Columbus Day weekend, which will be enforced for less than 2 days each year. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction. An 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 doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The details of this year's event were not submitted in sufficient time for the Coast Guard to solicit public comments before the start of the event. Thus, waiting for a notice and comment period to run would inhibit the Coast Guard from protecting the public and vessels from the hazards associated with the event.

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 impracticable and contrary to the public interest for the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph.

On October 27, 2012, a pumpkin launching event will take place on Lake Erie in which participants shoot pumpkins from an air cannon into the lake in East Huron, OH. This event is known as the Wounded Warriors Benefit. The Captain of the Port Detroit has determined that this benefit is in close proximity to other watercraft and poses a significant risk to public safety and property. Thus, the Captain of the Port Detroit has determined it necessary to establish a safety zone to control vessel movement around the location of the launch platform which will help ensure the safety of persons and property at these events and help minimize the associated risks.

As suggested above, this rule is intended to ensure safety of the public and vessels during the Wounded Warriors Benefit. This rule will be effective from 10:00 a.m. on October 27, 2012 until 7:00 p.m. on October 28, 2012, and enforced from 10:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. on October 27, 2012; in the event of inclement weather, the zone will be enforced from 10:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. on October 28, 2012. The safety zone will encompass all waters of Lake Erie within a 2500 ft radius of the pumpkin launching site located at position 41° 23′ 6.7194″ N, −82° 27′ 46.6812″ W. All geographic coordinates are North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated on scene representative. The on-scene representative may be present on any Coast Guard, state or local law enforcement, or sponsor provided vessel assigned to patrol the event. 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 analysesbased on these statutes or executive orders.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of 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 will be relatively small and exist for a relatively short time. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the area when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

Under 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 the portion of Lake Erie discussed above during the enforcement of the safety zone established herein.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This rule will be enforced for approximately nine hours on either October 27 or 28, 2012.

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

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and 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 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 CommandantInstruction. 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 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 to do so would be impracticable since the event will have taken place by the time the notice could be published and comments taken.

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 Registerdue to the late notification of this event and that the event will have occurred before comments could have been taken.

The Captain of the Port has been delegated the authority to establish safety zones for safety or environmental purposes in 33 CFR 160.5.

The fireworks display will create hazardous conditions for vessels in the area and the people onboard those vessels due to loud noises, falling debris, and explosions, as well as potential heavy vessel traffic congregating near the display. To mitigate these hazards, the Coast Guard believes that a temporary safety zone is needed.

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the Sector Columbia River Captain of the Port Zone. The safety zone will be established on the Willamette River from shore to shore between the Oregon City Bridge and the Interstate 205 Bridge, and will be enforced during the Oregon City Bridge Grand Opening fireworks display from 7:30 p.m. (P.D.T.) to 9:00 p.m. (P.D.T.) on October 13, 2012. All persons and vessels will be prohibited from entering the safety zone during this time unless authorized by the Sector Columbia River Captain of the Port or his designated representative.

This safety zone will improve the safety of the maritime public in the area during the fireworks display by prohibiting persons and vessels from entering areas where the risks associated with the fireworks display are present.

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

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. The Coast Guard has made this determination because the safety zone created by this rule will not significantly affect the maritime public as vessels may still transit the zone with prior authorization from the Coast Guard.

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

This rule would 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 Willamette River from 7:30 p.m. (P.D.T.) to 9:00 p.m. (P.D.T.) on October 13, 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 1.5 hours in the evening. Although the safety zone would apply to the entire width of the river, traffic would be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port. Before the activation of the zone, we will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the river.

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 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 aState, 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 around the fall out area of a fireworks display. This rule 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.

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

The Postal Service's final rule includes the announcement to make EDDM-Retail a permanent product, and contains the revisions toMailing Standards of the United States Postal Service,Domestic Mail Manual (DMM®) that we adopt to implement the changes. The price for Standard Mail® saturation flats with simplified addresses (EDDM flats) entered at a BMEU will be different than the price for EDDM-Retail flats effective with the January 2013 price change.

In December 2010, the Postal Service announced a new market test to begin in January 2011, to enable customers to mail saturation flats with simplified addresses to all types of delivery in an even more simplified manner. The USPSTMdeveloped a Web Tool to assist customers in determining which routes cover certain delivery areas and the number of residential, business, and total deliveries for each delivery route or Post Office BoxTMsection. The USPS also waived permit imprint application fees and annual presort mailing fees for mailers paying postage at the time of mailing while entering mail (up to 5000 pieces per day) at the office of delivery. In addition, mailers do not maintain a trust account for postage payment, instead paying at the time of mailing and using a simplified postage statement.

This market test has been very successful in making it easier for new customers to mail and increase their marketing efforts. On July 10, 2012, the Postal Service filed a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30,et seq.,to modify the Mail Classification Schedule (MCS) by adding Every Door Direct Mail-Retail (EDDM-Retail) to the market-dominant product list. We have subsequently received approval from the PRC and will convert this product to a permanent product offering.

Our current standards for use of simplified addresses on Standard Mail and on other classes of mail entered through Business Mail Entry Units are not changing. We are adding an alternative marketing name of Every Door Direct Mail for commercial mailings of Standard Mail flats with simplified addresses.

The Postal Service adopts the following changes toMailing Standards of the United States Postal Service,Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), which is incorporated by reference in theCode of Federal Regulations.See 39 CFR 111.1.

Accordingly, 39 CFR Part 111 is amended as follows:

Table of Contents I. Background II. EPA's Response to Comments III. Final Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA require states to make a SIP submission to address basic SIP requirements, including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and maintenance for that new NAAQS. On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852), EPA promulgated a new annual PM2.5NAAQS and on October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA promulgated a new 24-hour NAAQS. On July 20, 2012, EPA proposed to disapprove Alabama's July 25, 2008, and September 23, 2009, infrastructure submissions related to the requirements respecting state boards for the for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5NAAQS.See77 FR 42682. A summary of the background for today's final action is provided below. See EPA's July 20, 2012, proposed rulemaking at 77 FR 42682 for more detail.

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such NAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affects the content of the submission. The contents of such SIP submissions may also vary depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already contains. In the case of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5NAAQS, states typically have met the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2) through earlier SIP submissions in connection with previous PM NAAQS.

More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for “infrastructure” SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. Among the elements that states must address is section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), which in turn refers to the specific requirements of section 128. Section 128 explicitly provides that state SIPs “shall contain requirements” as described in sections 128(a)(1) and (2). In addition, states may adopt any additional requirements that are “more stringent” than those explicitly required in section 128. EPA issued guidance to states making recommendations concerning compliance with section 128.1

In this action, EPA is only addressing sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). In taking final action on the proposed disapproval, EPA is responding to an adverse comment received on EPA's July 20, 2012, proposed disapproval of Alabama's July 25, 2008, and September 23, 2009, infrastructure submissions for sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). EPA is taking a separate action to address the other applicable infrastructure elements for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5NAAQS.See, e.g.,77 FR 34288.

The following is EPA's response to the adverse comment received on EPA's July 20, 2012, proposed disapproval of Alabama's July 25, 2008, and September 23, 2009, infrastructure submissions as they relate to section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the CAA.

Comment:On August 20, 2012, ADEM commented on EPA's proposed action and requested that EPA withdraw its proposed disapproval of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). ADEM suggested in their comment that EPA approve a conflict of interest protocol submitted for inclusion in the SIP in connection with the State's 2008 ozone NAAQS infrastructure submission. ADEM submitted this conflict of interest protocol as an attachment to its adverse comment on the proposal action. ADEM asserted that with the inclusion of this protocol in the SIP, EPA would be able to approve Alabama's 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5infrastructure SIP for sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii).

Response:Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires that each implementation plan provide that states comply with the requirements respecting state boards pursuant to section 128 of the Act. Section 128 requires that: (1) The majority of members of the state board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders represent the public interest and do not derive any significant portion of their income from persons subject to permitting or enforcement orders under the CAA; and (2) any potential conflicts of interest by such board or body, or the head of an executive agency with similar powers be adequately disclosed.

In its July 20, 2012, proposed rulemaking (77 FR 42682), EPA preliminarily determined that the State's implementation plan did not contain provisions to comply with section 128 of the Act, and thus, Alabama's July 25, 2008, and September 23, 2009, submissions do not meet the requirements of the Act with respect to section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii).2 Alabama'scomment on that proposal, which contends that EPA should not finalize the proposed disapproval based upon a conflict of interest disclosure protocol included with the comment for incorporation into the SIP, does not address the underlying basis for the proposed disapproval of element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). The basis for EPA's disapproval, as discussed in the proposed rule for today's action, is that the SIP presently fails to include any requirements to address the applicable requirements of section 128 of the CAA.

EPA considered the State's comment and has determined the comments do not adequately address the requirements for the following procedural and substantive reasons. With respect to procedural issues, an adverse comment letter on a proposed action does not meet the statutory and regulatory requirements for a SIP submission. Section 110(a)(1), section 110(a)(2), and section 110(l), all provide that a state's implementation plan submission must undergo reasonable notice and opportunity for comment. In addition, EPA regulations at Part 51, Appendix V, set forth additional criteria for a SIP submission. EPA has determined that the conflict of interest disclosure protocol attached to the State's adverse comment letter does not constitute such a SIP submission for a number of reasons including, but not limited to, the fact that the State has not provided information that the submission has undergone the requisite public notice or a demonstration that the protocol has been adopted and is in final form as submitted. In addition, the protocol was not signed, stamped and dated by an appropriate official to indicate that it is fully enforceable by the State.

Substantively, were it an official submission, it would not be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 128 necessary for EPA to approve Alabama's infrastructure submissions as they relate to section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). As noted in the proposed rule for today's action, section 128 requires that: (1) The majority of members of the state board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders represent the public interest and do not derive any significant portion of their income from persons subject to permitting or enforcement orders under the CAA; and (2) any potential conflicts of interest by such board or body, or the head of an executive agency with similar powers be adequately disclosed.

Alabama provides no explanation as to how its conflict of interest disclosure protocol would satisfy the public interest and significant portion of income requirements applicable to the majority of a state board or body subject to section 128(a)(1). Alabama's response to EPA's comments on the State's draft 2008 8-hour ozone infrastructure submission (included with Alabama's comment on today's rulemaking) notes that certain ADEM officials are charged with responsibilities for issuing permits or enforcement orders. EPA has interpreted the “board or body” requirements of section 128(a)(1) as not applying to individuals tasked with authority to approve permits or enforcement orders. However, where appeals of such permits or enforcement orders are resolved by boards or bodies, those entities are subject to the majority requirements of section 128(a)(1). Alabama's comment does not describe how appeals of permits or enforcement order are handled in the State. In order for EPA to determine that the requirements of section 128(a)(1) are not applicable in Alabama, the State must provide this information. If a board or body does review appeals of permit or enforcement orders, the SIP must require that such board or board be subject to the 128(a)(1) majority requirements in order for EPA to approve Alabama's section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) infrastructure submittals. Based upon the information protocol described by Alabama, the State's approach fails to address the majority requirements of section 128.

In addition to the issues noted above regarding the section 128(a)(1) requirements, the question of whether a board or body handles appeals of permits or enforcement orders is also relevant to sufficiency of the State's protocol with respect to the section 128(a)(2) requirements. To the extent a board or body decides appeals of permits or enforcement orders, the SIP must require that members of such board or body be subject to the section 128(a)(2) conflict of interest disclosure requirements. The State's conflict of interest disclosure protocol, as submitted, would appear to only apply to three specified officials within ADEM. Alabama has failed to demonstrate how the submitted protocol would provide adequate disclosure consistent with the requirements section 128(a)(2).

EPA also notes that Alabama's conflict of interest disclosure protocol, at footnote 3, asserts that “EPA defines `significant portion of income' as 50% or more of gross personal income for a calendar year if the recipient is over 60 years of age and is receiving that portion under retirement, pension, or similar arrangement. This information need only be provided if the recipient falls in this category.” This statement is incomplete. The complete suggested definition for “Significant Portion of Income” recommended in EPA's 1978 Guidance to States for Meeting Conflict of Interest Requirements of Section 128 is “10 percent or more of gross personal income for a calendar year, including retirement benefits, consultation fees, and stock dividends, except that it shall mean 50 percent [or more] of gross personal income for a calendar year if the recipient is over 60 years of age and is receiving such portion pursuant to retirement, pension, or similar arrangement.” Alabama's protocol omits the generally applicable 10 percent standard.3

EPA is finalizing disapproval of Alabama's infrastructure submissions as they relate to sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) because, as described above, the SIP presently does not contain provisions to address the requirements of section 128 of the CAA. Consistent with the obligations under the CAA, EPA intends to continue working with the State to resolve this SIP deficiency.

EPA is taking final action to disapprove the portion of Alabama's July 25, 2008, and September 23, 2009, submissions which was intended to meet the requirement to address element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5NAAQS. EPA has made the determination that Alabama's SIP does not satisfy the requirement for element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5NAAQS. In today's action, EPA is not taking any action on the remaining elements of the submission, including other section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements.

Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a submittal that addresses a requirement of a Part D Plan (42 U.S.C. 7501-7515) or is required in response to a finding of substantial inadequacy as described in section 7410(k)(5) (SIP call) starts a sanctions clock. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) provisions (the provisions being disapproved in today's notice) were not submitted to meet requirements for Part D, andtherefore, no sanctions will be triggered. This final action triggers the requirement under section 110(c) that EPA promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) no later than 2 years from the date of the disapproval unless the State corrects the deficiency, and the Administrator approves the plan or plan revision before the Administrator promulgates such FIP.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly this final action disapproves state law because it does not meet federal requirements. For that reason, this action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 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. 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).

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 December 14, 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.Seesection 307(b)(2).

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

EPA is approving revisions to the South Carolina SIP, submitted by the State of South Carolina through SC DHEC, on August 31, 2007, and April 29, 2010, to meet RFP requirements of the CAA for the York County Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The RFP plan demonstrates that VOC emissions will be reduced by at least 15 percent for the period of 2002 through 2008. Additionally, EPA is approving the required 2008 VOC MVEB which were included in the York County Area RFP plan. EPA is taking these actions because they are consistent with CAA requirements for the requirements for RFP. The York County Area MVEB, expressed in tons per day (tpd) and kilograms per day (kgd), are provided in Table 1 below.

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). Under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS is attained when the 3-year average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient air quality ozone concentrations is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered) (69 FR 23857, April 30, 2004). Ambient air quality monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet the data completeness requirement as determined in 40 CFR part 50, appendix I. The ambient air quality monitoring data completeness requirement is met when the average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than 90 percent, and no single year has less than 75 percent data completeness.

Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that is violating the NAAQS, based on the three most recent years of ambient air quality data at the conclusion of the designation process. The bi-state Charlotte Area was designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS on April 30, 2004 (effective June 15, 2004) using 2001-2003 ambient air quality data (69 FR 23857, April 30, 2004). At the time of designation the bi-state Charlotte Area was classified as a moderate nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In the April 30, 2004, Phase I Ozone Implementation Rule, EPA established ozone nonattainment area attainment dates based on Table 1 of section 181(a) of the CAA. This established an attainment date six years after the June 15, 2004, effective date for areas classified as moderate areas for the 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment designations. Section 181 of the CAA explains that the attainment date for moderate nonattainment areas shall be as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than six years after designation, or June 15, 2010. Therefore, the bi-state Charlotte Area's original attainment date was June 15, 2010.See69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004.

The bi-state Charlotte Area did not attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by June 15, 2010 (the applicable attainment date for moderate nonattainment areas); however, the Area qualified for an extension of the attainment date. Under certain circumstances, the CAA allows for extensions of the attainment dates prescribed at the time of the original nonattainment designation. In accordance with CAA section 181(a)(5), EPA may grant up to 2 one-year extensions of the attainment date under specified conditions. On May 31, 2011, EPA determined that North Carolina and South Carolina met the CAA requirements to obtain a one-year extension of the attainment date for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the bi-state Charlotte Area.See76 FR 31245. As a result, EPA extended the bi-state Charlotte Area's attainment date from June 15, 2010, to June 15, 2011, for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

On November 15, 2011 (76 FR 70656), EPA determined the bi-state Charlotte Area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS; and subsequently, on March 7, 2012 (77 FR 13493), EPA determined that the bi-state Charlotte Area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. The determination of attaining data was based upon complete, quality-assured and certified ambient air monitoring data for the 2008-2010 period, showing that the Area had monitored attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The requirements for the Area to submit an attainment demonstration and associated reasonably available control measures (RACM), RFP plan, contingency measures, and other planning SIP revisions related to attainment of the standard were suspended as a result of the determination of attainment, so long as the Area continues to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.1 See40 CFR 52.2125(a).

On January 12, 2012, South Carolina withdrew the attainment demonstration submissions (except RFP, emissions statements, and the emissions inventory) as allowed by 40 CFR 51.918 for the York County Area.2 Subsequently, EPA approved South Carolina's SIP revisions related to the emissions statements and emissions inventory requirements for the York County Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. For the EPA action related to the emissions statements requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, see 77 FR 37812 (June 25, 2012). For the EPA action related to the emissions inventory requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, see 77 FR 29540 (May 18, 2012). Despite the determination of attainment, South Carolina opted to leave the SIP submissions related to the RFP requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS before EPA for action. As such, EPA is taking action to approve South Carolina's August 31, 2007, and April 29, 2010, SIP revisions as they related to the RFP requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

On November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612), as revised on June 8, 2007 (72 FR 31727), EPA published a rule entitled “Final Rule To Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard—Phase 2; Final Rule To Implement Certain Aspects of the 1990 Amendments Relating to New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration as They Apply in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter and Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for Reformulated Gasoline” (hereafter referred to as the Phase 2 Rule). Section 182(b)(1) of the CAA and EPA's Phase 2 Rule3 require a state, for each 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area that is classified as moderate, to submit an emissions inventory and a RFP plan to show how the state will reduce emissions of VOC.

The bi-state Charlotte Area had an attainment date of June 15, 2010 (i.e., that is beyond five years after designation), that was later extended to June 15, 2011.See76 FR 31245 (May 31, 2011). For a moderate area with an attainment date of more than five years after designation, the RFP plan must obtain a 15 percent reduction in ozone precursor emissions for the first six years after the baseline year (2002 through 2008). Since the York County Area did not have a previous plan to address RFP requirements,4 the initial RFP requirement for the Area must be met through VOC reductions as required by the 1990 CAA Amendments.

Pursuant to CAA section 172(c)(9), RFP plans must include contingency measures that will take effect without further action by the state or EPA, which includes additional controls that would be implemented if the area fails to reach the RFP milestones. While the CAA does not specify the type of measures or quantity of emissions reductions required, EPA provided guidance interpreting the CAA that implementation of these contingency measures would provide additional emissions reductions of up to 3 percent of the adjusted base year inventory in the year following the RFP milestone year (i.e., in this case 2008). For more information on contingency measures please see the April 16, 1992 General Preamble (57 FR 13498, 13510) and the November 29, 2005 Phase 2 8-hour ozone standard implementation rule (70 FR 71612, 71650). Finally, RFP plans must also include a MVEB for the precursors for which the plan is developed. See Section IV of this rulemaking for more information on MVEB requirements.

On August 31, 2007, and April 29, 2010, South Carolina submitted RFP plans for the York County Area to address the CAA's requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The August 31, 2007, SIP revision (as supplemented by the April 29, 2010, SIP revision) included an attainment demonstration plan, RFP plan for 2008 milestone year, contingency measures, RACT, RACM requirements, on-road VOC MVEB, and the 2002 base year emissions inventory. These SIP revisions were subject to notice and comment by the public and the State addressed the comments received on the proposed SIPs. Today's rulemaking is approving only the RFP plan, including the associated MVEB. The remainder of South Carolina's August 31, 2007, and April 29, 2010, SIP revisions were addressed by previous EPA actions, or by the State's withdrawal of submissions that were no longer necessary.

On August 31, 2007, and April 29, 2010, South Carolina submitted RFP plans for the York County Area to address the CAA's requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Below provides EPA's analysis of South Carolina's RFP submissions.

An emissions inventory is a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources and is required by section 182(a)(1) of the CAA. Because the York County Area as part of the bi-state Charlotte Area did not implement the 15 percent VOC reductions for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the requirement for South Carolina to meet RFP is a 15 percent VOC reduction between 2002 and 2008 with continued progress toward attainment through attainment.5 EPA recommended 2002 as the base year emissions inventory, and is therefore the starting point for calculating RFP. South Carolina submitted its 2002 base year emissions inventory on August 31, 2007. In an action on May 18, 2012, EPA approved South Carolina's 2002 base year emissions inventory for the York County Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.See77 FR 29540. A summary of the York County Area 2002 base year emissions inventories is included in Table 2 below.

In theReport and Order,DA 12-1462, adopted and released September 7, 2012, the Bureau implements certain provisions of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (“Public Safety Spectrum Act” or “Act”)1 governing deployment of a nationwide public safety broadband network in the 700 MHz band. The Public Safety Spectrum Act establishes the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) to oversee the construction and operation of this network as licensee of both the “existing public safety broadband spectrum” (763-769/793-799 MHz) and the spectrally adjacent “700 MHz D Block spectrum” (758-763/788-793 MHz).2 The Act directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) to reallocate the D Block for public safety services,3 to license the D Block and the existing public safety broadband spectrum to FirstNet4 and to take other actions necessary to “facilitate the transition” of the existing public safety broadband spectrum to FirstNet.

In theReport and Order,the Bureau implements clear directives of Congress set forth in the Public Safety Spectrum Act. The Bureau reallocates the D Block for “public safety services” and deletes Commission rules that are plainly inconsistent with this revised allocation. It also deletes the Commission rules establishing, providing license authority with respect to, and governing operations under the Public Safety Broadband License in the existing public safety broadband spectrum. The Bureau replaces these with rules implementing the clear mandate of the Public Safety Spectrum Act to grant a license with respect to this spectrum and the D Block to FirstNet. The rule changes adopted by the Bureau in this order are strictly limited to implementation of aspects of that mandate that leave no room for agency discretion, and thus fall within the Bureau's delegated authority and are consistent with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.5 As noted below, by eliminating any confusion or uncertainty about the new regulatory framework applicable to the public safety broadband network, the Bureau's action takes further steps necessary to facilitate the transition of this spectrum to FirstNet as the prospective licensee established by the Act;. TheReport and Orderis available athttp://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0907/DA-12-1462A1.pdf.

ThisReport and Orderwill become effective November 14, 2012, except for the deletion of sections 90.18 and 90.528 of the Commission's rules. Following that date, the Commission will publish a separate notice in theFederal Registerannouncing the subsequent effective date of these rule deletions, which shall be the date of issuance of a license to the First Responder Network Authority pursuant to Section 6201(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012.

Under Section 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission is not required to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis relating to theReport and Orderbecause it was not required to publish general notice of proposed rulemaking before effecting the rule changes set forththerein. TheReport and Ordercontains no new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. The Commission shall send a copy of theReport and Orderin a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act,see5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, The Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 0, 27, and 90 as follows:

The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). Gag in the South Atlantic are managed under this FMP. The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and is implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

The commercial ACL (commercial quota) for gag in the South Atlantic is 352,940 lb (160,091 kg), gutted weight, for the current fishing year, as specified in 50 CFR 622.42(e)(7).

In accordance with regulations at 50 CFR 622.49(b)(3)(i), NMFS is required to close the commercial sector for gag and all other SASWG when the commercial ACL (commercial quota) for gag has been reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. NMFS has determined that the commercial ACL (commercial quota) for South Atlantic gag will be reached by October 20. Accordingly, the commercial sector for South Atlantic gag and all other SASWG is closed effective 12:01 a.m., local time, October 20, 2012, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2013. The recreational sector will continue to remain open until December 31, 2012.

Additionally, a seasonal closure is in place for the recreational and commercial sectors for gag and all other SASWG from January through April each fishing year as specified in 50 CFR 622.35(j). Therefore, the commercial harvest of gag and all other SASWG will not commence until May 1, 2013.

The operator of a vessel with a valid commercial vessel permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper having gag or other SASWG onboard must have landed and bartered, traded, or sold such gag or other SASWG prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, October 20, 2012. During this commercial closure, the bag limit and possession limits specified in 50 CFR 622.39(d)(1) and (d)(2), respectively, apply to all harvest or possession of gag or other SASWG in or from the South Atlantic EEZ, and the sale or purchase of gag or other SASWG taken from the EEZ is prohibited. The prohibition on sale or purchase does not apply to the sale or purchase of gag or other SASWG that were harvested, landed ashore, and sold prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, October 20, 2012, and were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor. For a person on board a vessel for which a Federal commercial permit for the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery has been issued, the sale and purchase provisions of the commercial closure for gag or other SASWG would apply regardless of whether the fish are harvested in state or Federal waters, as specified in 50 CFR 622.43(a)(5)(iii).

During the seasonal closure for the recreational and commercial sectors for gag and all other SASWG from January through April each fishing year, no person may fish for, harvest, or possess in or from the South Atlantic EEZ any SASWG. In addition, for a person on board a vessel for which a valid Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper has been issued, the provisions of this closure apply in the South Atlantic, regardless of where such fish are harvested,i.e.,in state or Federal waters as specified in 50 CFR 622.35(j).

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, (AA), finds that the need to immediately implement this action to close the commercial sector for gag and other SASWG constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such procedures would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures would be unnecessary because the rule itself has been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Allowing prior notice and opportunity for public comment is contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action to protect gag since the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the quota. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and would potentially result in a harvest well in excess of the established commercial ACL (commercial quota).

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

This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.43(a) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (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. Regulations governing sideboard protections for GOA groundfish fisheries appear at subpart B of 50 CFR part 680.

The 2012 Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) apportioned to vessels using pot gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA is 11,755 metric tons (mt), as established by the final 2012 and 2013 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (77 FR 15194, March 14, 2012).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) has determined that the 2012 Pacific cod TAC apportioned to vessels using pot gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 11,755 mt and is setting aside the remaining 0 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. 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 cod by vessels using pot gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. After the effective date 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 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 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 Pacific cod for vessels using pot gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public commentbecause the most recent, relevant data only became available as of October 9, 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.