Federal Register Vol. 80, No.124,

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to add an AD that would apply to all Przedsiebiorstwo Doswiadczalno-Produkcyjne Szybownictwa “PZL-Bielsko” Model SZD-50-3 “Puchacz” sailplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on April 17, 2015 (80 FR 21191). The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country. The MCAI states:

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (80 FR 21191, April 17, 2015) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 21191, April 17, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 21191, April 17, 2015).

We reviewed Allstar PZL Glider Service Bulletin BE-063/SZD-50-3/2014 “Puchacz”, dated December 14, 2014. The service bulletin describes procedures for inspecting the area around the left-hand and right-hand rudder cable fitting blocks for cracks and detachment and making all necessary repairs. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

We estimate that this AD will affect 5 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the inspection requirement of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.

Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the inspection requirement of this AD on U.S. operators to be $425, or $85 per product.

In addition, we estimate that it will take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the modification requirement of this AD and will require parts costing $100, for a cost of $270 per product.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

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

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0951; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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

We are adopting an updated EDGAR Filer Manual, 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 II entitled EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II: “EDGAR Filing,” Version 32 (June 2015). The updated manual will be incorporated by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations.

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

The EDGAR system will be upgraded to Release 15.2 on June 15, 2015 and will introduce the following changes:

EDGAR will be updated to add new submission form types N-CR and N-CR/A to EDGARLink Online. These new submission form types can be accessed by selecting the `EDGARLink Online Form Submission' link on the EDGAR Filing Web site. Additionally, filers can construct XML submissions for these submission form types by following the “EDGARLink Online XML Technical Specification” document available on the SEC's Public Web site (http://www.sec.gov/info/edgar.shtml).

Submission form types ABS-15G and ABS-15G/A will be updated based on final Rule 15Ga-2.

The OMB expiration date will no longer be displayed on submission form types 13F-HR, 13F-HR/A, 13F-NT, 13F-NT/A, 13H, 13H-A, 13H-Q, 13H-I, 13H-T, and 13H-R.

EDGAR will no longer provide support for the US-GAAP-2013 and EXCH-2013 taxonomies. Please see http://www.sec.gov/info/edgar/edgartaxonomies.shtml for a complete listing of supported standard taxonomies.

Documentation only corrections were made to Chapter 3, “Index to Forms,” of the “EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II: EDGAR Filing,” which include adding submission types 8-K12B and 8-K12B/A to Table 3-3, “Securities Exchange Act—Registration and Report Submission Types Accepted by EDGAR.”

Documentation only changes were made to “EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II: EDGAR Filing” for Section 508 compliance.

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

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

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

The effective date for the updated Filer Manual and the rule amendments is June 29, 2015. In accordance with the APA,6 we find that there is good cause to establish an effective date less than 30 days after publication of these rules. The EDGAR system upgrade to Release 15.2 is scheduled to become available on June 15, 2015. The Commission believes that establishing an effective date less than 30 days after publication of these rules is necessary to coordinate the effectiveness of the updated Filer Manual with the system upgrade.

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

Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.

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

The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulation listed in 33 CFR 100.909, Chinatown Chamber of Commerce Dragon Boat Race; Chicago, IL. This special local regulation will encompass all waters of the South Branch of the Chicago River from the West 18th Street Bridge at position 41°51′28″ N., 087°38′06″ W. to the Amtrak Bridge at position 41°51′20″ N., 087°38′13″ W. (NAD 83). This special local regulation will be enforced from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. on June 27, 2015.

Vessels desiring to transit the regulated area may do so only with prior approval of the Patrol Commander and when so directed by that officer. Vessels will be operated at a no wake speed to reduce wake to a minimum, and in a manner which will not endanger participants in the event or any other craft. The rules contained in the above two sentences shall not apply to participants in the event or vessels of the patrol operating in the performance of their assigned duties. The Patrol Commander may direct the anchoring, mooring, or movement of any boat or vessel within the regatta area.

This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.909, Chinatown Chamber of Commerce Dragon Boat Race; Chicago, IL, and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notification in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of the enforcement of this special local regulation via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or a designated on-scene representative may be contacted via Channel 16, VHF-FM.

The Coast Guard will enforce the Safety Zone; Town of Dune Acres Independence Day Fireworks listed as item (e)(17) in Table 165.929 of 33 CFR 165.929. Section 165.929 lists many annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone. This safety zone encompasses all waters of Lake Michigan within the arc of a circle with a 700-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 41°39.303′ N., 087°05.239′ W. This zone will be enforced on July 03, 2015 from 8:45 p.m. until 10:30 p.m.

All vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or a designated on-scene representative to enter, move within, or exit this safety zone. Requests must be made in advance and approved by the Captain of the Port before transits will be authorized. Approvals will be granted on a case by case basis. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone shall obey all lawful orders or directions of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or a designated on-scene representative.

This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.929, Safety Zones; Annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone, and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this publication in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or a designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 during the event.

The Coast Guard will enforce the Miesfeld's Lakeshore Weekend Fireworks safety zone listed as item (e)(49) in Table 165.929 of 33 CFR 165.929. Section 165.929 lists many annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone. This safety zone will encompass waters of Lake Michigan and Sheboygan Harbor within an 800-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located at the south pier in approximate position 43°44.917′ N., 087°41.967′ W. (NAD 83). This zone will be enforced from 9:15 p.m. until 10:15 p.m. on July 24, 2015.

All vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or the on-scene representative to enter, move within, or exit the safety zone. Requests must be made in advance and approved by the Captain of the Port before transits will be authorized. Approvals will be granted on a case by case basis. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone must obey all lawful orders or directions of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated representative.

This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.929, Safety Zones; Annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone, and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this publication in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification for the enforcement of this zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or an on-scene representative may be contacted via Channel 16, VHF-FM.

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. On June 9, June 10, June 16, June 17, June 23, 2015 and July 7, 2015, maintenance on the L&I RR Bridge will take place. The Coast Guard determined that immediate action is necessary to establish a temporary safety zone to protect life and property from the hazards associated with and resulting from maintenance being performed on the L&I RR Bridge.

This safety zone may include closures and/or navigation restrictions and requirements that are vital to maintaining safe navigation on the Ohio River during maintenance operations on the L&I RR Bridge. Therefore, delaying the effective date for this emergency safety zone to complete the NPRM process would be contrary to the public interest as it would delay the safety measures vital to safe navigation. Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNM) and information sharing with the waterway users will update mariners of the restrictions, requirements, and enforcement times during this emergency situation.

For the same reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this emergency rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Providing 30 days notice would be contrary to public interest because immediate action is needed to protect life and property from the hazards associated with and resulting from maintenance on the L&I RR Bridge.

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

The purpose of this temporary safety zone is to protect life and property from the hazards associated with and resulting from the maintenance on the L&I RR Bridge. The maintenance on the L&I RR Bridge poses significant safety hazards to vessels and mariners operating in the area. Establishing the safety zone to extend from mile 603.4 to mile 605.4 on the Ohio River is necessary for the Coast Guard to maintain navigational safety.

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for all vessel traffic on the Ohio River between mile 603.4 and mile 605.4, extending the entire width of the Ohio River. Maintenance on the bridge is expected to occur from 7:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on 6/9/2015, 7:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on 6/10/2015, 7:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on 6/16/2015, 7:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on 6/17/2015, 7:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on 6/23/2015, and 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on 7/07/2015, unless it is completed earlier. The COTP, or a designated representative will provide information as to when the safety zone if effective, based on information received for when the maintenance is taking place. Deviation from this temporary safety zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the COTP Ohio Valley, or a designated representative. Deviation requests will be considered and reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The COTP Ohio Valley may be contacted by telephone at 1-502-779-5424 or can be reached by VHF-FM channel 16.

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

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This rule establishes a temporary safety zone for vessels on all waters of the Ohio River from mile 603.4 to mile 605.4. Notifications of enforcement times will be communicated to the marine community via BNM and through local notice to mariners (LNM). The impacts on navigation will be limited to ensuring the safety of mariners and vessels associated with hazards associated with the maintenance on the L&I RR Bridge.

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

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the Ohio River, from 7:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on 6/09/2015, 7:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on 6/10/2015, 7:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on 6/16/2015, 7:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on 6/17/2015, 7:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on 6/23/2015, and 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on 7/07/2015 or until maintenance on the L&I RR Bridge is complete, whichever occurs earlier. This temporary safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because maintenance work is only expected to be done during certain hours. Requests to deviate from the rule will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Notifications to the marine community will be made through BNM, LNM, and communications with local waterway users. Notices of changes to the safety zone and effective times will also be made.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, 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 the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that 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 is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination will be made available as indicated under the ADDRESSES section. 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:

On February 18, 2015, the Coast Guard published an FR in the Federal Register which listed safety zones corresponding to annual marine events in the Sector Lake Michigan zone (80 FR 8536). This FR included the safety zone for the City of Menasha 4th of July Fireworks in Menasha, WI (the subject of this TFR). Because the City of Menasha 4th of July Fireworks is expected to be launched this year from a different location than that which is listed in the FR, the Coast Guard is issuing this TFR.

The Coast Guard is issuing this TFR 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 an NPRM with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The final details for this event were not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Specifically, the Coast Guard was not informed of the new location planned for the fireworks launch location until the end of May, 2015. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be both impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect the public and vessels from the hazards associated with the barge-based fireworks display on July 4, 2015, which are discussed further below.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register for the same reason listed above, doing so would impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect the public and vessels from the hazards associated with the barge-based fireworks display.

The legal basis for this rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish safety zones: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

On July 4, 2015, the City of Menasha is expected to hold its annual 4th of July fireworks display. This fireworks display will be launched from a barge within the waters of the Fox River. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan has determined that this fireworks display will pose a significant risk to public safety and property. Such hazards include falling and/or flaming debris, and collisions among spectator vessels.

With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of persons and vessels during the fireworks display near Menasha, Wisconsin. This zone is effective and will be enforced from 8:45 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2015. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the Fox River and Lake Winnebago within a 600 foot radius of an approximate launch position at 44°12.017′ N., 088°25.904′ W. (NAD 83).

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

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 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. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for only one day. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this temporary rule on small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the affected portion of the Fox River and Lake Winnebago on July 4, 2015.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the reasons cited in the Regulatory Planning and Review section. Additionally, before the enforcement of this zone, we would issue local Broadcast Notice to Mariners so vessel owners and operators can plan accordingly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone and therefore it is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination for this zone have been previously completed and are available via http://www.regulations.gov under Docket Number USCG-2014-1001. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

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

The Coast Guard will enforce the Vessel Launch at Marinette Marine safety zone listed as item (f)(16) in Table 165.929 of 33 CFR 165.929. Section 165.929 lists many annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone. This safety zone will encompass all waters of the Menominee River in the vicinity of Marinette Marine Corporation, from the Bridge Street Bridge located in position 45°06.188′ N., 087°37.583′ W., then approximately .63 NM south east to a line crossing the river perpendicularly passing through positions 45°05.936′ N., 087°36.764′ W., and 45°06.992′ N., 087°36.728′ W. (NAD 83) in the vicinity of the Ansul Company. This zone will be enforced from 9 a.m. until 3 p.m. on July 18, 2015.

All vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or the on-scene representative to enter, move within, or exit the safety zone. Requests must be made in advance and approved by the Captain of the Port before transits will be authorized. Approvals will be granted on a case by case basis. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone must obey all lawful orders or directions of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated representative.

This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.929, Safety Zones; Annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone, and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this publication in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification for the enforcement of this zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or an on-scene representative may be contacted via Channel 16, VHF-FM.

The Coast Guard will enforce the Waterfront Festival Fireworks safety zone listed as item (f)(8) in Table 165.929 of 33 CFR 165.929. Section 165.929 lists many annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone. This safety zone will encompass all waters of Green Bay, in the vicinity of Menominee Marina, within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from a center position at 45°06.447′ N., 087°35.991′ W. (NAD 83). This zone will be enforced from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m. on August 8, 2015.

All vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or the on-scene representative to enter, move within, or exit the safety zone. Requests must be made in advance and approved by the Captain of the Port before transits will be authorized. Approvals will be granted on a case by case basis. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone must obey all lawful orders or directions of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated representative.

This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.929, Safety Zones; Annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone, and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this publication in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification for the enforcement of this zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or an on-scene representative may be contacted via Channel 16, VHF-FM.

The Coast Guard will enforce the Safety Zones; Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone listed in 33 CFR 165.939 for the following events:

(1) Mentor Harbor Yacht Club Fireworks, Mentor Harbor, OH; The safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.939(a)(23) will be enforced from 9 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 3, 2015.

(2) Conneaut Fourth of July Fireworks, Conneaut, OH; The safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.939(a)(21) will be enforced from 9 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on July 4, 2015.

(3) Lorain 4th of July Celebration Fireworks, Lorain, OH; The safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.939(a)(28) will be enforced from 9:15 p.m. to 11 p.m. on July 4, 2015.

Pursuant to 33 CFR 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within these safety zones during an enforcement period is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated representative. Those seeking permission to enter one of these safety zones may request permission from the Captain of Port Buffalo via channel 16, VHF-FM. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter one of these safety zones shall obey the directions of the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated representative. While within a safety zone, all vessels shall operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course.

This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.939 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notification in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of these enforcement periods via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. If the Captain of the Port Buffalo determines that one of these safety zones need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this document he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the respective safety zone.

On May 5, 2015, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Safety Zone for Fireworks Display, Chesapeake Bay, Prospect Bay; Queen Anne's County, MD” in the Federal Register (80 FR 25634). We received no comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held. The permanent safety zones listed in the Table to 33 CFR 165.506 do not apply to this 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 the Federal Register. Due to the need for immediate action, the restriction of vessel traffic is necessary to protect life, property and the environment; therefore, to allow 30 days after publication notice is impracticable. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the safety zone's intended objectives of protecting persons and vessels, and enhancing public and maritime safety.

The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1 and 160.5; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1., which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to propose, establish, and define regulatory safety zones. Fireworks displays are frequently held from locations on or near the navigable waters of the United States. The potential hazards associated with fireworks displays are a safety concern during such events. The purpose of this rule is to promote public and maritime safety during a fireworks display, and to protect mariners transiting the area from the potential hazards associated with a fireworks display, such as the accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. This rule is needed to ensure safety on the waterway before, during and after the scheduled event.

The Coast Guard received no comments in response to the NPRM. No public meeting was requested and none was held. Accordingly, the regulatory text mirrors the proposed text published in the NPRM.

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.

Although this regulation would restrict access to this area, the effect of this proposed rule will not be significant because: (i) The safety zone will only be in effect from 8:30 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 4, 2015, and if necessary due to inclement weather, from 8:30 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 5, 2015, (ii) the Coast Guard will give advance notification via maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly, and (iii) although the safety zone will apply to certain portions of the Inner Harbor, smaller vessel traffic will be able to transit safely around the safety zone.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard 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 operate or transit through or within, or anchor in, the safety zone during the enforcement period.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the reasons stated under paragraph D.1., Regulatory Planning and Review.

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 affects your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above.

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 the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that 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 establishing a temporary safety zone for a fireworks display. The fireworks are launched from navigable waters of the United States and may negatively impact the safety or other interests of waterway users and near shore activities in the event area. The activity includes fireworks launched from barges near the shoreline that generally rely on the use of navigable waters as a safety buffer to protect the public from fireworks fallouts and premature detonations. This action is necessary to protect persons and property during the project. 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 under ADDRESSES.

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. Providing a full 30 days notice is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest as it would delay the effectiveness of the temporary safety zone until after the planned fireworks event. Immediate action is needed to protect vessels and mariners from the safety hazards associated with aerial fireworks displays over a waterway when large concentrations of spectators and vessel traffic are expected. The Coast Guard will give actual notice to the public and maritime community that the safety zone will be in effect and of the enforcement period via broadcast notices to mariners (BNM).

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Immediate action is needed to protect vessels and mariners from the safety hazards associated with aerial fireworks displays over a waterway when large concentrations of spectators are expected. The Coast Guard will give actual notice to the public and maritime community that the safety zone will be in effect and of the enforcement period via BNM.

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

The purpose of this safety zone is to protect life and property from the hazards associated with and resulting from the Riverview Park Independence Festival firework display. The rule is necessary due to significant safety hazards associated with an aerial fireworks display over the waterway when a large concentration of spectators and vessel traffic are expected. Establishing the safety zone to extend from mile 618.5 to mile 619.5 on the Ohio River is necessary for the Coast Guard to maintain navigational safety on the river.

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the Ohio River between mile 618.5 and mile 619.5, extending the entire width of the Ohio River. Transit into and through this area is prohibited beginning at 10:00 p.m. through 10:30 p.m. on June 27, 2015 or until the Riverview Park Independence Festival firework display has concluded, whichever occurs earlier. Deviation from this temporary safety zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the COTP Ohio Valley, or a designated representative. Deviation requests will be considered and reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The COTP Ohio Valley may be contacted by telephone at 1-800-253-7465 or can be reached by VHF-FM channel 16.

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

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This rule establishes a temporary safety zone for vessels on all waters of the Ohio River from mile 618.5 to mile 619.5. The safety zone will be established for less than one hour. Due to the limited scope and short duration of the temporary safety zone, the impacts on routine navigation are expected to be minimal.

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

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the Ohio River, from 10:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on June 27, 2015. This temporary safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities due to its limited scope and short duration. Additionally, requests to deviate from the rule will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Notifications to the marine community will be made through BNM, local notice to mariners, and communications with local waterway users. Notices of changes to the safety zone and effective times will also be made.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, 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 the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such 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 is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. Because this safety zone is established in response to a temporary situation and is less than one week in duration, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required.

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

The Coast Guard will enforce the Milwaukee Air and Water Show safety zone listed as item (f)(2) in Table 165.929 of 33 CFR 165.929. Section 165.929 lists many annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone. This safety zone will encompass all waters and adjacent shoreline of Lake Michigan in the vicinity of McKinley Park located within an area that is approximately 4800 by 1250 yards. The area will be bounded by the points beginning at 43°02.450′ N., 087°52.850′ W.; then southeast to 43°02.230′ N., 087°52.061′ W.; then northeast to 43°04.543′ N., 087°50.801′ W.; then northwest to 43°04.757′ N., 087°51.512′ W.; then southwest returning to the point of origin (NAD 83). This zone will be enforced from 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m. on each day of July 22, 2015 to July 26, 2015.

All vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or the on-scene representative to enter, move within, or exit the safety zone. Requests must be made in advance and approved by the Captain of the Port before transits will be authorized. Approvals will be granted on a case by case basis. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone must obey all lawful orders or directions of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated representative.

This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.929, Safety Zones; Annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone, and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this publication in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification for the enforcement of this zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or an on-scene representative may be contacted via Channel 16, VHF-FM.

On December 12, 2014, the Copyright Royalty Judges (Judges) received a joint motion from SoundExchange, Inc. (“SoundExchange”) and Sirius XM Radio, Inc. (“Sirius XM”) to adopt a settlement of royalty rates and terms under Sections 112(e) and 114 of the Copyright Act (“the Act”) for 2016-2020 for new subscription services of the type at issue in the captioned proceeding (i.e., music services provided to residential subscribers as part of a cable or satellite television bundle). See Joint Motion to Adopt Settlement at 1 and 37 CFR 383.2(h). Sirius XM creates music and nonmusic programming and transmits it through its satellite digital audio radio service and other outlets. According to Sirius XM, it relies on the royalty rates and terms in 37 CFR part 383 for music programming it provides through the DiSH satellite television service. Joint Motion at 2. SoundExchange is a nonprofit organization that is jointly controlled by representatives of sound recording copyright owners and performers. Id. The Judges published the proposed settlement and requested comments from the public. See 80 Federal Register 2065 (January 15, 2015).

Section 801(b)(1) of the Act, among other things, authorizes the Judges to make determinations and adjustments of reasonable terms and rates of royalty payments as provided in Section 112(e) and 114 of the Act. Section 114(f)(2)(A) of the Act provides, among other things, that, proceedings under chapter 8 of the Act shall determine reasonable rates and terms of royalty payments for public performances of sound recordings by means of new subscription services. Section 112(e)(3) of the Act provides that proceedings under chapter 8 of the Act shall determine reasonable rates and terms of royalty payments for activities specified in Section 112(e)(1) of the Act (i.e., the making of no more than one phonorecord of a sound recording by a transmitting organization entitled to transmit to the public a performance of a sound recording under a statutory license in accordance with Section 114(f) of the Act). The Judges have commenced two prior proceedings for five-year rate periods pursuant to these two provisions, both of which ended when the participants reached an agreement of the applicable rates and terms. See 72 FR 72253 (December 20, 2007) and 75 FR 14074 (March 24, 2010). The current rate period expires December 31, 2015.

Pursuant to section 803(b)(1)(A)(i)(III) of the Copyright Act, the Judges published in the Federal Register a notice commencing a rate determination proceeding for the 2016-2020 rate period and requesting interested parties to submit Petitions to Participate. See 79 FR 410 (January 3, 2014). The Judges received Petitions to Participate from Music Reports, Inc. (“Music Reports”), National Music Publishers Association (“NMPA”), Sirius XM, Spotify USA, Inc., and SoundExchange. The Judges subsequently dismissed the petitions to participate of NMPA and Music Reports. See Order Dismissing Petition to Participate (Music Reports) (May 30, 2014) and Order Granting SoundExchange Motion to Deny the Petition to Participate of National Music Publishers' Association (April 30, 2014). On September 26, 2014, Spotify withdrew from the proceeding. See Notice of Withdrawal of Petition to Participate. As a result, Sirius XM and SoundExchange are the only remaining participants in this proceeding. Joint Motion at 2.

Section 801(b)(7)(A) of the Copyright Act authorizes the Judges to adopt rates and terms negotiated by “some or all of the participants in a proceeding at any time during the proceeding” provided the settling parties submit the negotiated rates and terms to the Judges for approval. That provision directs the Judges to provide those who would be bound by the negotiated rates and terms an opportunity to comment on the agreement. The Judges will adopt the negotiated rates and terms unless a participant in a proceeding objects and the Judges conclude that the agreement does not provide a reasonable basis for setting statutory rates or terms, the Judges adopt the negotiated rates and terms. 17 U.S.C. 801(b)(7)(A).

Rates and terms the Judges adopt pursuant to this provision are binding on all owners of copyright in sound recordings and on all new subscription services performing the copyrighted sound recordings on digital audio channels transmitted by a cable or satellite television distribution service to residential customers, bundled with television channels as part of a “basic” service subscription package, and not available separately for a separate fee. See 37 CFR 383.2(h).

The Judges “may decline to adopt the agreement as a basis for statutory terms and rates for participants that are not parties to the agreement,” only “if any participant [to the proceeding] objects to the agreement and the [Judges] conclude, based on the record before them if one exists, that the agreement does not provide a reasonable basis for setting statutory terms or rates.” 17 U.S.C. 801(b)(7)(A)(ii). The Judges received no comments or objections in response to their request for comments published in the Federal Register.

The Judges, therefore, by this notice, adopt as final regulations for the period commencing January 1, 2016, and ending on December 31, 2020, the rates and terms agreed to by Sirius XM and SoundExchange for digital transmission of sound recordings by new subscription services and the making of ephemeral reproductions necessary to facilitate those transmissions.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Copyright Royalty Board amends 37 CFR part 383 as follows:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.

This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.

Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the address cited below for each community. The BFEs and modified BFEs are made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected locations in each community are shown.

National Environmental Policy Act. This final rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared.

Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This final rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This final rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows:

On December 12, 2014, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of the Office of Management and Budget published an interim final rule that provided comprehensive modifications to the principles and requirements for federal awards. 79 FR 75871. The uniform rules were published as 2 CFR part 200. As part of that rulemaking, the National Endowment for the Arts adopted part 200, along with an agency-specific addendum in a new part 3255.

The NEA received no relevant comments in response to the rule. Therefore, 2 CFR part 3255, as described in the interim final rule, is adopted with no changes.

For the regulatory findings regarding this rulemaking, please refer to the analysis prepared by OIRA in the interim final rule, which is incorporated herein. 79 FR at 75876.

Generally, agencies may promulgate final rules only after issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and providing an opportunity for public comment under procedures required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), as provided in 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (c). The APA, in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), provides an exception from these requirements when notice and public comment procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” FMCSA finds that notice and comment is unnecessary prior to adoption of this final rule because it is merely restoring an inadvertently removed, a statutorily-required regulation. Accordingly, the Agency is performing a nondiscretionary, ministerial act by publishing today's final rule. Therefore, the Agency may adopt this rule without notice and receiving public comment, in accordance with the APA. For these same reasons, under the good cause authority found in 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the rule will be effective upon publication.

FMCSA determined that an error was made in the publication of the October 1, 2013, MAP-21 Implementation final rule. 78 FR 60226. That rule inadvertently deleted paragraph (c) of § 384.209, Notification of traffic violations. As explained in the 2013 final rule, FMCSA intended to amend paragraphs (a) and (b) of § 384.209. Paragraphs (a) and (b) previously required States to report a commercial driver's convictions to the driver's State of licensure. The 2013 amendments added the requirement that States report foreign commercial drivers' convictions to FMCSA's Federal Convictions and Withdrawal Database, in accordance with MAP-21 requirements. 78 FR 60227. In making that addition, FMCSA did not intend to remove paragraph (c), which is statutorily required and directed States to report the convictions within 10 days. See 49 U.S.C. 31311.

Accordingly, the 10-day reporting requirement remains in effect and paragraph (c) should not have been removed as a part of the MAP-21 Implementation rule. Today's final rule corrects that error by restoring the 10-day reporting requirement in paragraph (c). Prior to its inadvertent removal, paragraph (c) contained outdated references to the effective dates for the 10-day reporting requirement, which took place in 2005 and 2008. The Agency believes that this final rule provides an appropriate opportunity to remove those outdated references. Accordingly, today's final rule restores the inadvertently removed reporting requirement, but eliminates the obsolete effective dates.

FMCSA has determined this final rule is not a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, as supplemented by E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), or within the meaning of Department of Transportation Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

As explained above, this final rule is strictly administrative in that it corrects the inadvertent removal of a nondiscretionary statutory requirement. Today's final rule will not exceed the $100 million annual threshold. There are no costs attributed to this final rule. This final rule is not expected to generate substantial congressional or public interest. Therefore, a full regulatory impact analysis has not been conducted nor has there been a review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857), FMCSA is not required to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis under 5 U.S.C. 604(a) for this final rule because the Agency has not issued a notice of proposed rulemaking prior to this action. FMCSA has determined that it has good cause to adopt the rule without notice and comment.

In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, FMCSA wants to assist small entities in understanding this final rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on themselves and participate in the rulemaking initiative. If the final rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult the FMCSA point of contact, Mr. Robert Redmond, listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this rule.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business Administration's 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 FMCSA, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy ensuring the rights of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.

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 $151 million (which is the value equivalent of $100,000,000 in 1995, adjusted for inflation to 2012 levels) or more in any 1 year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This final rule will call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) because it merely corrects an inadvertent error. Regardless, the notification requirement in 49 CFR 384.309(c) was previously approved under OMB Control No. 2126-0011.

A rule has implications for Federalism under Section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132 if it has “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” As this rule merely corrects an inadvertent error from a previous rule, and will have no actual impact on any State nor limit the policymaking discretion of the States, FMCSA has determined that there is no federalism impact. As such, the Agency is not required to prepare a Federalism Assessment or Impact Statement.

This final 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.

E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, Apr. 23, 1997), requires agencies issuing “economically significant” rules, if the regulation also concerns an environmental health or safety risk that an agency has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, to include an evaluation of the regulation's environmental health and safety effects on children. The Agency determined this final rule is not economically significant. Therefore, no analysis of the impacts on children is required. In any event, the Agency does not anticipate that this regulatory action could in any respect present an environmental or safety risk that could disproportionately affect children.

FMCSA reviewed this final rule in accordance with E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights, and has determined it will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have takings implications.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, (Pub. L. 108-447, 118 Stat. 2809, 3268, 5 U.S.C. 552a note) requires the Agency to conduct a privacy impact assessment (PIA) of a regulation that will affect the privacy of individuals. This rule does not include a collection of personally identifiable information (PII), therefore no PIA is required.

The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies only to Federal agencies and any non-Federal agency which receives records contained in a system of records from a Federal agency for use in a matching program.

The E-Government Act of 2002, Public Law 107-347, § 208, 116 Stat. 2899, 2921 (Dec. 17, 2002), requires Federal agencies to conduct a PIA for new or substantially changed technology that collects, maintains, or disseminates information in an identifiable form. No new or substantially changed technology would collect, maintain, or disseminate information as a result of this rule. As a result, FMCSA has not conducted a PIA.

The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this program.

FMCSA has analyzed this final rule under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. The Agency has determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under E.O. 13211.

This final rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 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.

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) are standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This final rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

FMCSA analyzed this final rule for the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and determined that this action is categorically excluded from further analysis and documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under FMCSA Order 5610.1 (69 FR 9680, March 1, 2004), Appendix 2, paragraph (6b), concerning editorial and procedural regulations. The CE is available for inspection or copying in the Regulations.gov Web site listed under ADDRESSES.

FMCSA also analyzed this action under the Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA), section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), and implementing regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency. Approval of this action is exempt from the CAA's general conformity requirement since it does not affect direct or indirect emissions of criteria pollutants.

Under E.O. 12898, each Federal agency must identify and address, as appropriate, “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations” in the United States, its possessions, and territories. FMCSA evaluated the environmental justice effects of this rule in accordance with the E.O., and has determined that no environmental justice issue is associated with this rule, nor is there any collective environmental impact that would result from its promulgation.

In consideration of the foregoing, FMCSA amends 49 CFR part 384 as follows:

The dolphin and wahoo fishery off the Atlantic states is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Dolphin and Wahoo Fishery of the Atlantic (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, in cooperation with the Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Management Councils, and is implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

The commercial ACL for dolphin is 1,157,001 lb (524,807 kg), round weight. Under 50 CFR 622.280(a)(l)(i), NMFS is required to close the commercial sector for dolphin when the commercial ACL has been reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. NMFS previously determined that the commercial ACL would be reached and that the commercial sector for dolphin should close on June 24, 2015. Therefore, NMFS published a temporary rule to implement accountability measures (AMs) to close the commercial sector for dolphin in the EEZ off the Atlantic states (Maine through the east coast of Florida), effective at 12:01 a.m., local time, June 24, 2015 (80 FR 36249, June 24, 2015).

However, the most recent landings for dolphin indicate the commercial ACL has not been reached. Consequently and in accordance with 50 CFR 622.8(c), NMFS temporarily re-opens the commercial sector for dolphin on June 24, 2015, and closes the commercial sector on June 30, 2015. A closure on June 30, 2015, minimizes the risk of the commercial ACL for dolphin from being exceeded and provides sufficient notice to fishermen of the closure.

The operator of a vessel with a valid commercial vessel permit for dolphin on board must have landed and bartered, traded, or sold such species prior to the closure at 12:01 a.m., local time, June 30, 2015. During the closure, the bag and possession limits specified in 50 CFR 622.277(a)(1) apply to all harvest or possession of dolphin in or from the Atlantic EEZ. Additionally, these bag and possession limits apply in the Atlantic EEZ (Maine through the east coast of Florida) on board a vessel for which a valid Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for dolphin and wahoo has been issued, without regard to where such species were harvested, i.e., in state or Federal waters. During the closure, the sale or purchase of dolphin taken from the EEZ is prohibited. The commercial sector for dolphin will re-open on January 1, 2016, the beginning of the 2016 commercial fishing season.

The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of dolphin off the Atlantic states and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.

This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.8(c) and 622.280(a)(1)(i) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

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

This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that the need to immediately implement this action to temporarily re-open the commercial sector for dolphin 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 are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule implementing the commercial ACL and AMs has been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the re-opening. Such procedures are contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action to allow vessels with dolphin to transit safely and land dolphin harvested in the EEZ by June 30, 2015, while minimizing the risk of exceeding the commercial ACL. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time, would delay the re-opening of the commercial sector, and would potentially result in the discard of dolphin already harvested legally prior to June 24, 2015.

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

NMFS manages the Pacific sardine fishery in the U.S. EEZ off the Pacific coast (California, Oregon, and Washington) in accordance with the CPS FMP. Annual specifications published in the Federal Register establish the allowable harvest levels (i.e. over fishing limit (OFL)/ACL/HG) for each Pacific sardine fishing year. The purpose of this final rule is to implement these annual catch reference points for the 2015-2016 fishing year. This final rule adopts, without changes, the reference points that NMFS proposed in the rule published on May 21, 2015 (80 FR 29296), including an OFL and an ABC that takes into consideration uncertainty surrounding the current estimate of biomass for Pacific sardine in the U.S. EEZ off the Pacific coast.

The FMP and its implementing regulations require NMFS to set these annual catch levels for the Pacific sardine fishery based on the annual specification framework and control rules in the FMP. These control rules include the HG control rule, which in conjunction with the OFL and ABC rules in the FMP, are used to manage harvest levels for Pacific sardine, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. According to the FMP, the quota for the principle commercial fishery is determined using the FMP-specified HG formula. The HG formula in the CPS FMP is HG = [(Biomass-CUTOFF) * FRACTION * DISTRIBUTION] with the parameters described as follows:

1. Biomass. The estimated stock biomass of Pacific sardine age one and above. For the 2015-2016 management season this is 96,688 mt.

2. CUTOFF. This is the biomass level below which no HG is set. The FMP established this level at 150,000 mt.

3. DISTRIBUTION. The average portion of the Pacific sardine biomass estimated in the EEZ off the Pacific coast. The FMP established this at 87 percent.

4. FRACTION. The temperature-varying harvest fraction is the percentage of the biomass above 150,000 mt that may be harvested.

As described above, the Pacific sardine HG control rule, the primary mechanism for setting the annual directed commercial fishery quota, includes the CUTOFF parameter which has been set as a biomass amount of 150,000 mt. This amount is subtracted from the annual biomass estimate before calculating the applicable HG for the fishing year. Therefore, because this year's biomass estimate is below that value, the formula results in an HG of zero and therefore no Pacific sardine are available for the commercial directed fishery during the 2015-2016 fishing year.

At the April 2015 Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) meeting, the Council adopted the “Assessment of the Pacific Sardine Resource in 2015 for U.S.A. Management in 2015-2016” completed by NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center and the resulting Pacific sardine biomass estimate of 96,688 mt. Based on recommendations from its Science and Statistical Committee (SSC) and other advisory bodies, the Council recommended and NMFS is implementing, an OFL of 13,227 mt, an available biological catch (ABC) of 12,074 mt, and a prohibition on sardine catch unless it is harvested as part of either the live bait or tribal fishery or incidental to other fisheries for the 2015-2016 Pacific sardine fishing year. As additional conservation measures, the Council also recommended and NMFS is implementing an ACL of 7,000 mt and an annual catch target (ACT) of 4,000 mt. Incidental catch of Pacific sardine in other CPS fisheries will be managed under the ACT and be subject to the following management controls to reduce targeting and potential discard of Pacific sardine: (1) A 40 percent by weight incidental catch rate when Pacific sardine are landed with other CPS until a total of 1,500 mt of Pacific sardine are landed; (2) after 1,500 mt have been caught, the allowance will be reduced to 30 percent; and (3) when 4000 mt is reached, the incidental per landing allowance will be reduced to 5 percent for the remainder of the 2015-2016 fishing year. Additionally, the Council adopted a 2 mt incidental per landing allowance in non-CPS fisheries. Because Pacific sardine is known to comingle with other CPS stocks, these incidental allowances were adopted to allow for the continued prosecution of these other important CPS fisheries and reduce the potential discard of sardine.

The NMFS West Coast Regional Administrator will publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the date of attainment of any of the incidental catch levels described above and subsequent changes to allowable incidental catch percentages. Additionally, to ensure that the regulated community is informed of any closure, NMFS will make announcements through other means available, including fax, email, and mail to fishermen, processors, and state fishery management agencies.

As explained in the proposed rule, 1,000 mt of the ACL are being set aside for tribal harvest use as a result of a request by the Quinault Indian Nation.

On May 21, 2015, NMFS published a proposed rule for this action and solicited public comments (80 FR 29296), with a public comment period that ended on June 5, 2015. NMFS received two comments—explained below—regarding the proposed Pacific sardine specifications. After consideration of the public comments, no changes were made from the proposed rule. For further background information on this action please refer to the preamble of the proposed rule.

Comment 1: The commenter stated that the language in the proposed rule seems to minimize the economic impact of the sardine closure on the fleet and that sardine income has been a critical component of profitability. The commenter requested that NMFS address the economic impacts of the closure by re-opening the sardine fishery as soon as possible. The commenter further states that the immediate focus should be on confirming whether the surveys used to estimate biomass are accurate.

Response: NMFS understands and agrees that this action is likely to have a negative economic impact on vessels that harvest Pacific sardine. NMFS did not intend to minimize the potential lost revenue to sardine fisherman caused by this rule compared to previous seasons. Although most vessels within the CPS fleet may be able to shift fishing effort to other species and supplement economic losses incurred by the sardine closure, we also understand that for certain individuals, including the commenter, the prohibition on directed commercial harvest may carry a heavier financial burden. The fact that many sardine fishermen also participate in other fisheries, which is expected to help offset lost revenue from sardine harvest, was not the deciding factor for NMFS in taking this action.

The CPS FMP and its implementing regulations require NMFS to set the harvest specifications for the Pacific sardine fishery using the control rules set in the FMP. As stated above, the Pacific sardine HG control rule includes a CUTOFF of 150,000 mt. When the sardine biomass drops below this level, the FMP dictates that there will be no quota allocated to the primary commercial directed fishery. Allowing a directed commercial fishery as requested by the commenter would therefore violate the FMP. While allowing directed commercial fishing for the 2015-2016 fishing year could provide short-term economic benefits, the HG control rule is intended to help ensure long-term opportunities for harvesting sardine and relatively stable levels of harvest as opposed to a “boom-and-bust” type fishery. Although even in the absence of a commercial fishery, unfavorable environmental conditions could keep the sardine population at a low level, the purpose of a cutoff that is three times greater than the overfished level (50,000 mt) is akin to having a pre-determined, systemic rebuilding program that limits fishing as the stock declines. A cutoff both helps prevent overfishing and also stops fishing at an early stage in the stock's decline to help maintain a stable core population of sardines that can jump-start a new cycle of population growth if the environmental conditions become favorable.

With regard to the commenter's question about whether the surveys used to estimate sardine biomass are sound, as explained above under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, this year's biomass estimate used for the 2015-2016 specifications went through extensive review, and along with the resulting OFL and ABC, was endorsed by the Council's SSC and NMFS as the best available science. The stock assessment for the 2015-2016 fishing year, as with each annual stock assessment, went through a multi-stage review process including being reviewed and discussed by the Council, and the Council's SSC, CPS management team, and CPS advisory subpanel to ensure that the best available science is utilized when calculating the biomass estimate. Every year, NOAA conducts a stock assessment for the northern subpopulation of Pacific Sardine that combines fisheries data with data collected off the West Coast by NOAA research ships surveying for sardine eggs, larvae and schools of mature fish, with models that incorporate sardine biology. As noted by the commenter, in past years the assessment has also incorporated scientific information from industry sponsored aerial surveys. However, this survey was not conducted in 2014 so data was not available for use in the 2015 survey. If in future years this work becomes available then this data source can be incorporated.

Comment 2: One commenter expressed support for the prohibition on directed commercial sardine fishing, but opposed the proposed ACL and ACT levels, and requested that NMFS instead set an ACL of no more than 1,000 mt. The commenter expressed an opinion that the FMP does not allow any fishing when the biomass drops below the CUTOFF. The commenter further stated that the proposed ACL would allow too much harvest at a time when the sardine biomass is low and would further reduce the population to an overfished condition and does not provide an incentive for fisherman to avoid incidentally catching sardine.

Response: NMFS disagrees that the ACL and ACT implemented in this rule are not in line with the FMP or that they fail to prevent overfishing and thereby will not protect the stock from becoming overfished. The ACL and ACT should be viewed in the context of the OFL for the northern subpopulation of Pacific Sardine of 13,227 mt and an ABC of 12,074 mt that takes into account scientific uncertainty surrounding the OFL. These reference limits were recommended by the Council based on the control rules in the FMP and were endorsed the Council's SSC. The commenter does not note disagreement with these levels. By definition, fishing could conceivably occur up to these levels and overfishing would not be occurring and therefore fishing would not be the cause of the stock moving towards an overfished state. An ACL of 7,000 mt is well below both the OFL and ABC and with the ACT of 4,000 mt under which incidental catch of sardine will be managed, along with the multiple safeguards in place to keep the catch under that level, the management measures implemented by this rule are more than adequate to prevent exceeding the OFL.

In response to the commenter's opinion that no harvest should be allowed when the biomass drops below the 150,000-mt CUTOFF, NMFS notes that the FMP does not forbid incidental, live bait or tribal harvest in this situation. It also appears that although the commenter states that the harvest rate in this situation should be zero, the commenter nevertheless agrees that the FMP can allow these types of harvest. The commenter specifically cites the CPS FMP language that allows for live bait harvest when the estimated biomass drops below the CUTOFF. The commenter also recommends setting the ACL at 1,000 mt to accommodate live bait, tribal and incidental harvest of sardine. Additionally, although the commenter disagrees with setting the ACL at 7,000 mt because it would allow a harvest rate above zero percent (which the commenter argues would violate the FMP), the commenter also requests that an ACL of 1,000 mt be implemented (implying that the commenter recognizes that the FMP allows a harvest rate above zero percent). Detailed information on the fishery and the stock assessment are found in the report “Assessment of the Pacific Sardine Resource in 2015 for U.S.A. Management in 2015-2016.”

Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the CPS FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and other applicable law.

NMFS finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness for the establishment of these final harvest specifications for the 2015-2016 Pacific sardine fishing season. In accordance with the FMP, this rule was recommended by the Council at its meeting in April 2015, the contents of which were based on the best available new information on the population status of Pacific sardine that became available at that time. Making these final specifications effective on July 1 is necessary for the conservation and management of the Pacific sardine resource. The FMP requires a prohibition on directed fishing for Pacific sardine for the 2015-2016 fishing year because the sardine biomass has dropped below the CUTOFF. The purpose of the CUTOFF in the FMP—and disallowing directed fishing when the biomass drops below this level—is to protect the stock when biomass is low and provide a buffer of spawning stock that is protected from fishing and available for use in rebuilding the stock. A delay in the effectiveness of this rule for a full 30 days would not allow the implementation of this prohibition prior to the expiration of the closure of the directed fishery on July 1, 2015, which was imposed under the 2014-2015 annual specifications.

Delaying the effective date of this rule beyond July 1 would be contrary to the public interest because reducing Pacific sardine biomass beyond the limits set out in this action could decrease the sustainability of the Pacific sardine, as well as causing future harvest limits to be even lower under the harvest control rule, thereby reducing future profits of the fishery.

These final specifications are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

A final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) was prepared for this action. The FRFA incorporates the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA). No issues were raised by public comments in response to the IRFA prepared pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) for this action or on the economic impacts of the rule generally. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. The results of the FRFA are stated below. Additionally for copies of the FRFA, please see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

The purpose of this action is to implement the 2015-2016 annual specifications for Pacific sardine in the U.S. EEZ off the Pacific coast. Annual specifications published in the Federal Register establish the allowable harvest levels (i.e. OFL/ACL/HG) for each Pacific sardine fishing year. This final rule adopts without changes the reference points that NMFS proposed in the rule published on May 21, 2015 (80 FR 29296), including an OFL and an ABC that takes into consideration uncertainty surrounding the current estimate of biomass for Pacific sardine in the U.S. EEZ off the Pacific coast. The FMP and its implementing regulations require NMFS to set these annual catch levels for the Pacific sardine fishery based on the annual specification framework and control rules in the FMP.

On June 12, 2014, the Small Business Administration (SBA) issued an interim final rule revising the small business size standards for several industries effective July 14, 2014 (79 FR 33467). The rule increased the size standard for Finfish Fishing from $19.0 to 20.5 million, Shellfish Fishing from $5.0 to 5.5 million, and Other Marine Fishing from $7.0 to 7.5 million. 78 FR 33656, 33660, 33666 (See Table 1). NMFS conducted its analysis for this action in light of the new size standards.

The small entities that would be affected by the action are the vessels that fish for Pacific sardine as part of the West Coast CPS small purse seine fleet. As stated above, the U.S. Small Business Administration now defines small businesses engaged in finfish fishing as those vessels with annual revenues of $20.5 million or less. Under the former, lower standards, all entities subject to this action in previous years were considered small entities, and under the new standards they continue to be considered small. In 2014, there were approximately 81 vessels permitted to operate in the directed sardine fishery component of the CPS fishery off the U.S. West Coast; 58 vessels in the Federal CPS limited entry fishery off California (south of 39 N. lat.), and a combined 23 vessels in Oregon and Washington's state Pacific sardine fisheries. The average annual per vessel revenue in 2014 for the West Coast CPS finfish fleet was well below $20.5 million; therefore, all of these vessels therefore are considered small businesses under the RFA. Because each affected vessel is a small business, this rule has an equal effect on all of these small entities and therefore will impact a substantial number of these small entities in the same manner. Therefore, this rule would not create disproportionate costs between small and large vessels/businesses.

For the 2014-2015 fishing year, approximately 22,076 mt were available for harvest by the directed non-tribal commercial fishery (this includes 2,500 released from the tribal set aside). Approximately 19,440 mt (approximately 3,378 mt in California and 16,023 mt in Oregon and Washington) of this allocation was harvested during the 2014-2015 fishing year, for an estimated ex-vessel value of $8.8 million.

The CPS FMP and its implementing regulations require NMFS to annually set an OFL, ABC, ACL and HG or ACT for the Pacific sardine fishery based on the specified harvest control rules in the FMP applied to the current stock biomass estimate for that year. The derived annual HG or ACT is the level typically used to manage the principle commercial sardine fishery and is the harvest level typically used by NMFS for profitability analysis each year. As stated above, the FMP dictates that when the estimated biomass drops below a certain level (150,000 mt) that there is no HG. Therefore, for purposes of profitability analysis, this action is implementing an HG of zero for the 2015-2016 Pacific sardine fishing year (July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015). As there is no directed fishing for the 2015-2016 fishing year, the rule will decrease small entities' potential profitability compared to last season.

However, revenue derived from harvesting Pacific sardine is typically only one source of fishing revenue for a majority of the vessels that harvest Pacific sardine; as a result, the economic impact to the fleet from the action cannot be viewed in isolation. From year to year, depending on market conditions and availability of fish, most CPS/sardine vessels supplement their income by harvesting other species. Many vessels in California also harvest anchovy, mackerel, and in particular squid, making Pacific sardine only one component of a multi-species CPS fishery. For example, market squid have been readily available to the fishery in California over the last three years with total annual ex-vessel revenue averaging approximately $66 million over that time, compared to an annual average ex-vessel from sardine of $15 million over that same time period. Additionally, some sardine vessels that operate off of Oregon and Washington also fish for salmon in Alaska or squid in California during times of the year when sardine are not available. The purpose of the incidental allowances under this action are to ensure the vessels impacted by this sardine action can still access these other profitable fisheries while still limiting the harvest of sardine.

These vessels typically rely on multiple species for profitability because the total and regional abundance of sardine, like the other CPS stocks, is highly associated with ocean conditions and seasons of the year, and therefore are harvested at various times and areas throughout the year. Because each species responds to ocean conditions in its own way, not all CPS stocks are likely to be abundant at the same time; therefore, as abundance levels and markets fluctuate, it has necessitated that the CPS fishery as a whole rely on a group of species for its annual revenues. Therefore, although there will a reduction in sardine revenue for the small entities affected by this action as compared to the previous season, it is difficult to predict exactly how this reduction will impact overall annual revenue for the fleet.

No significant alternatives to this action exist that would accomplish the stated objectives of the applicable statutes. The zero directed harvest level is required by the FMP. NMFS implemented incidental catch allowances, which minimizes the economic impact of this rule on the affected small entities and ensures that the CPS fleet can continue fishing other CPS species where sardine incidental catch is possible.

There are no reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements required by this final rule. Additionally, no other Federal rules duplicate, overlap or conflict with this final rule.

This action does not contain a collection-of-information requirement for purposes of the Paper Reduction Act.