Federal Register Vol. 80, No.156,

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends controlled airspace at Ed Carlson Memorial Field-South Lewis County Airport, Toledo, WA.

On May 27, 2015, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Ed Carlson Memorial Field-South Lewis County Airport, Toledo, WA (80 FR 30185). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this final rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Ed Carlson Memorial Field-South Lewis County Airport, Toledo, WA. A review of the airspace revealed new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is decreased from the 6.0-mile radius to within a 4-mile radius of Ed Carlson Memorial-South Lewis County Airport, with segments extending from the 4-mile radius to 8 miles northeast of the airport, and 7 miles southwest of the airport. This action enhances the safety and management of controlled airspace within the NAS.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies controlled airspace at Santa Rosa, CA.

On May 27, 2015, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at the Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County Airport, Santa Rosa, CA (80 FR 30182). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this final rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Charles M. Schulz-Sonoma County Airport, Santa Rosa, CA. After a review of the airspace, the FAA found removal of the Class E airspace area above 1,200 feet necessary as this airspace is no longer required for standard instrument approach procedures at the airport. This action enhances the safety and management of controlled airspace within the NAS.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial, and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Background

Docket No. FAA-2015-1650, Airspace Docket No. 14-AEA-8, published in the Federal Register on June 9 2015 (80 FR 32464), amends VOR Federal airways V-31, V-36, V-98, V-164 and V-252 by removing certain segments in Canadian airspace. The development of associated en route procedures are planned for October 15, 2015, therefore the rule amending these airways is delayed until that date.

Additionally, subsequent to publication of the final rule, it was determined that an error was made in the description of Federal airway V-36, whereby the airway segments between Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada, and the intersection of radials from the Wiarton, Ontario, Canada, and the Toronto, Ontario, Canada, navigation aids were inadvertently removed. This action corrects the description of V-36 by reinserting the missing airway segments.

Domestic VOR Federal Airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal Airway listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the effective date of the final rule, Airspace Docket 14-AEA-8, as published in the Federal Register on June 9, 2015 (80 FR 32464), is hereby delayed until October 15, 2015.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the description of VOR Federal airway V-36 as published in the Federal Register on June 9, 2015 (80 FR 32464) (FR Doc. 2015-13980) for Federal airway V-36, is corrected under the description for V-36 as follows:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes controlled airspace at Hill AFB, Ogden, UT.

On May 1, 2015, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace as an extension to the Class D surface area, and modify Class D airspace at Ogden-Hinckley Airport, Ogden, UT (80 FR 24860). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000 and 6004, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this final rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace as an extension to the Class D surface area and modifies Class D airspace Hill AFB, Ogden, UT. Class E airspace as an extension to the Class D surface area is established within a 4.5-mile radius of point in space coordinates, with a segment extending 1 mile southeast. Class D airspace is amended to within a 4.6-mile radius of Hill AFB, and the boundary between Hill AFB and Ogden-Hinckley Airport is moved 1 mile northwest. This action also updates the geographic coordinates for Hill AFB and Ogden-Hinckley Airport. This action enhances the safety and management of controlled airspace within the National Airspace System.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends controlled airspace at Chehalis-Centralia Airport, Chehalis, WA.

On May 27, 2015, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Chehalis-Centralia Airport, Chehalis, WA (80 FR 30181). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this final rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Chehalis-Centralia Airport, Chehalis, WA. A review of the airspace revealed that new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures are necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is modified to within a 4-mile radius of Chehalis-Centralia Airport, with a segment extending from the 4-mile radius to 8.1 miles north of the airport. This action enhances the safety and management of controlled airspace within the NAS.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends controlled airspace at Southwest Washington Regional Airport, Kelso, WA.

On May 27, 2015, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Southwest Washington Regional Airport, Kelso, WA (80 FR 30183). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this final rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Southwest Washington Regional Airport, Kelso, WA. A review of the airspace revealed modification necessary for new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures developed at the airport, the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is modified to within a 4-mile radius of the Southwest Washington Regional Airport, with segments extending from the 4-mile radius to 14.8 miles northwest of the airport, 20.7 miles north of the airport, and 13.2 miles northeast of the airport. This action enhances the safety and management of controlled airspace within the NAS.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes controlled airspace at Ogden-Hinckley Airport, Ogden, UT.

On May 1, 2015, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace as an extension to the Class D surface area, modify Class D airspace, and Class E airspace extending from 700 feet above the surface, at Ogden-Hinckley Airport, Ogden, UT (80 FR 24861). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Subsequent to publication, the FAA identified an error in the geographic coordinates in the legal description of the airspace designated as an extension to Class D airspace. This action corrects the error.

Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this final rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace as an extension to the Class D surface area, modifies Class D airspace, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Ogden-Hinckley Airport, Ogden, UT. Class E airspace as an extension to the Class D surface area is established with a segment extending from the 4.3-mile radius of the airport to 16 miles southwest of the airport. The Class D airspace common boundary between Ogden-Hinckley Airport and Hill AFB, Ogden, UT, is moved 1 mile northwest. Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is modified to within a 5.3-mile radius of the airport, with segments extending from the 5.3-mile radius to 11 miles northwest, and 13 miles southwest of the airport. This action updates the geographic coordinates for Ogden-Hinckley Airport and Hill AFB, as well as corrects coordinates in the legal description for the Class E airspace area designated as an extension. This action enhances the safety and management of controlled airspace within the NAS.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

This document contains amendments to 26 CFR part 1 under section 6081 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) regarding extensions of time to file certain information returns. Effective for filing season 2017, this document removes § 1.6081-8 and adds new § 1.6081-8T. Section 1.6081-8 will remain in effect for filing season 2016. Section 1.6081-8 currently provides an automatic 30-day extension of time to file information returns on forms in the W-2 series (including Forms W-2, W-2AS, W-2G, W-2GU, and W-2VI), 1095 series, 1098 series, 1099 series, and 5498 series, and on Forms 1042-S and 8027, and allows an additional 30-day non-automatic extension of time to file those information returns in certain cases.

The temporary regulations § 1.6081-8T are substantially identical to the regulations § 1.6081-8 that will be removed, except that the temporary regulations: (1) Add information returns on forms in the 1097 series and Forms 1094-C, 3921, and 3922 to the list of information returns with procedures prescribed by regulations for the extension of time to file; (2) remove information returns on forms in the W-2 series (except Form W-2G) from the list of information returns eligible for the automatic 30-day extension of time to file, and instead provide a single 30-day non-automatic extension of time to file those information returns; and (3) clarify that the procedures for requesting an extension of time to file in the case of forms in the 1095 series apply to information returns on Forms 1095-B and 1095-C, but not 1095-A.

The due dates imposed by statute, regulation, or form instruction for filing information returns on forms in the W-2 series, 1097 series, 1098 series, and 1099 series, and Forms 1094-C (when filed as a stand-alone information return), 1095-B, 1095-C, 3921, 3922, and 8027 on paper are either February 28 or the last day of February of the calendar year following the calendar year for which the information is being reported. The due date for filing these information returns electronically is March 31 of the calendar year following the calendar year for which the information is being reported. The information returns on forms in the 5498 series and the Form 1042-S, whether filed on paper or electronically, are due March 15 and May 31, respectively, of the calendar year following the calendar year for which the information is being reported. All of these information returns are filed with the IRS, except for information returns on forms in the W-2 series (other than Form W-2G), which are filed with the Social Security Administration. Filers who fail to timely and accurately file these information returns may be subject to penalties under section 6652 (regarding failure to file certain information returns), section 6693 (regarding failure to report on certain tax-favored accounts or annuities), or section 6721 (regarding failure to timely and accurately file information returns defined by section 6724(d)(1)).

Section 6081(a) generally provides that the Secretary may grant a reasonable extension of time, not to exceed 6 months, for filing any return, declaration, statement, or other document required by Title 26 or by regulation. The regulations under section 6081 generally provide rules for extensions of time to file returns. The regulations under § 1.6081-8 provide specific rules for extensions of time to file certain information returns.

Under § 1.6081-8(a), a person required to file certain information returns (the filer), or the person transmitting the return for the filer (the transmitter), can currently receive an automatic 30-day extension of time to file those information returns. A filer or transmitter obtains an automatic 30-day extension of time to file by submitting a Form 8809, “Application for Extension of Time to File Information Returns,” to the IRS on or before the due date of the information return.

Section 1.6081-8(d) also currently provides that a filer or transmitter that obtains an automatic 30-day extension of time to file may request an additional 30-day extension of time to file by submitting a second Form 8809 on or before the date that the automatic 30-day extension of time to file expires. That additional 30-day extension of time to file under § 1.6081-8(d) is not automatically granted by the IRS. Unlike requests to obtain an automatic 30-day extension of time to file under § 1.6081-8(a), a filer or transmitter that requests an additional 30-day extension of time to file under § 1.6081-8(d) is required to sign the Form 8809 under penalties of perjury and include an explanation of why an additional extension of time to file is needed. No further extensions of time to file are permitted under § 1.6081-8.

Employers eligible to file information returns on forms in the W-2 series on an expedited basis under § 31.6071(a)-1(a)(3)(ii) are not eligible to obtain the automatic 30-day extension of time to file those information returns under § 1.6081-8 because they received an automatic extension of time to file information returns on forms in the W-2 series under Rev. Proc. 96-57 (1996-2 CB 389), see § 601.601(d)(2)(ii)(b) of this chapter.

A filer or transmitter seeking an extension of time to furnish statements to recipients is required to separately request an extension of time to furnish the statements under rules applicable to those statements.

The IRS uses third-party information returns to increase voluntary compliance, verify accuracy of tax returns, improve collection of taxes, and combat fraud, including fraudulent refund claims filed by unscrupulous preparers and individuals using the stolen identities of legitimate taxpayers. Identity theft and refund fraud is a persistent and evolving threat to the nation's tax system. It places an enormous burden on the United States Government, with the most painful and immediate impact being on the victims whose personal information is used to commit the crime and the most pervasive impact being an erosion of public confidence in the tax system.

Identity thieves often electronically file their fraudulent refund claims early in the tax filing season, using fictitious wage and other information of legitimate taxpayers. Unscrupulous preparers also electronically file early in the tax filing season, over-claiming deductions and credits and underreporting income for unwitting, as well as complicit, taxpayers. In many cases, the IRS is unable to verify the wage and other information reported on tax returns filed before April 15th, in part because the IRS does not receive the information returns reporting this information until later in the filing season.

Although paper information returns are generally due to be filed by February 28 or the last day of February of the calendar year following the calendar year for which the information is reported, an extension of time to file under § 1.6081-8 may currently extend the due date until the end of March or, if a non-automatic extension is also granted, the end of April. Similarly, although electronically-filed information returns are generally due by March 31 of the calendar year following the calendar year for which the information is reported, an extension of time to file under § 1.6081-8 may extend the due date until the end of April or, if a non-automatic extension is also granted, the end of May.

Receipt of information returns earlier in the filing season will improve the IRS's ability to identify fraudulent refund claims and stop the refunds before they are paid. The United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) has cited the IRS's receipt of information returns late in the filing season as a contributing factor in payment of fraudulent refunds due to identity theft and preparer misconduct. See GAO Report GAO-14-633, Identity Theft, Additional Actions Could Help IRS Combat the Large, Evolving Threat of Refund Fraud. Removing the automatic 30-day extension of time to file is an affirmative step to accelerate the filing of information returns so they are available earlier in the filing season for use in the IRS's refund fraud detection processes.

Over the next several years, the IRS intends to remove the 30-day automatic extension of time to file certain information returns. Under § 1.6081-8T, which will not be effective until the 2017 filing season, the first information returns subject to these new rules are information returns on forms in the W-2 series (except Form W-2G). These information returns are particularly helpful to the IRS for identifying fraudulent identity theft refund claims and preventing their payout. This is because a significant portion of most taxpayers' income and withholding information is reported on Forms W-2. Forms W-2 are also a major source of the false income and withholding that is reported by identity thieves and unscrupulous preparers. Having access to Forms W-2 earlier in the filing season will improve the IRS's ability to conduct pre-refund matching and identify incidences of identity theft and tax refund fraud.

Accordingly, § 1.6081-8T provides a single 30-day non-automatic extension of time to file information returns on forms in the W-2 series (except Form W-2G) due in 2017 that the IRS may, in its discretion, grant if the IRS determines that an extension of time to file is warranted based on the filer's or transmitter's explanation attached to the Form 8809 signed under the penalties of perjury. The IRS anticipates that it will grant the non-automatic extension of time to file only in limited cases where the filer's or transmitter's explanation demonstrates that an extension of time to file is needed as a result of extraordinary circumstances or catastrophe, such as a natural disaster or fire destroying the books and records a filer needs for filing the information returns. If the IRS does not grant the extension of time to file, information returns filed after their due dates are not timely filed, regardless of whether the application for extension of time to file was filed timely.

The IRS intends to eventually remove the automatic 30-day extension of time to file the other forms listed in § 1.6081-8T and replace it with a single non-automatic 30-day extension of time to file. Therefore, proposed regulations set forth in the notice of proposed rulemaking on this subject in the Proposed Rules section in this issue of the Federal Register would remove the automatic 30-day extension of time to file these other information returns. As currently drafted, the proposed regulations would affect information returns due January 1 of the calendar year beginning after the date of publication of final regulations in the Federal Register, but the preamble to those proposed regulations provides that final regulations will not be effective any earlier than the 2018 filing season.

Treasury and the IRS request comments on the appropriate timing of the removal of the automatic extension of time to file information returns covered by § 1.6081-8T, such as Form 1042-S, including whether special transitional considerations should be given for any category or categories of forms or filers relative to other forms or filers. Please follow the instructions in the “Comments and Requests for Public Hearing” section in the notice of proposed rulemaking accompanying these temporary regulations in this issue of the Federal Register.

Section 1.6081-8T also updates the list of information returns that are currently covered by § 1.6081-8. Forms 3921 and 3922 are being added to § 1.6081-8T because these forms have been included on Form 8809 since the June 2009 revision, which coincided with the revision of the regulations requiring those forms under section 6039. See TD 9470 (74 FR 59087) November 17, 2009. Forms in the 1097 series are being added because they have similarly been included on Form 8809 since the September 2010 revision, which coincided with the publication of the notice requiring the filing of the only active form in the 1097 series, Notice 2010-28 (2010-15 IRB 541).

In addition, the Form 1094-C is being added to the list of forms in § 1.6081-8T. In most cases the Form 1094-C is filed as a mere transmittal with the Form 1095-C and, therefore, the due date of the Form 1094-C is the same as the Form 1095-C, including extensions. However, in certain cases, the Form 1094-C is filed as a stand-alone information return. See TD 9661, (79 FR 13231) March 10, 2014. When Form 1094-C is filed as a stand-alone information return, it is subject to the same rules regarding extensions of time to file as other information returns. Accordingly, Form 1094-C has been added to the list of forms subject to extension under § 1.6081-8T.

Section 1.6081-8T also replaces the general reference to the forms in the 1095 series that was added to § 1.6081-8 on March 10, 2014, by TD 9660 (79 FR 13220) with specific references to Forms 1095-B and 1095-C. Form 1095-A was not intended to be included in § 1.6081-8, because the timing rules for filing the Form 1095-A are governed by § 1.36B-5. See TD 9663 (79 FR 26113) May 7, 2014.

Certain IRS regulations, including this one, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations.

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), it is hereby certified that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As stated in this preamble, these regulations remove the automatic 30-day extension of time to file information returns on Forms in the W-2 series (except for Form W-2G). Starting in filing season 2017, filers and transmitters may request only one 30-day extension of time to file Form W-2 by timely submitting a Form 8809, including an explanation of the reasons for requesting the extension and signed under penalty of perjury. Although the regulation may potentially affect a substantial number of small entities, the economic impact on these entities is not expected to be significant because filers who are unable to timely file as a result of extraordinary circumstances or catastrophe may continue to obtain a 30-day extension through the Form 8809 process. The form takes approximately 20 minutes to prepare and submit to the IRS. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, these regulations have been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business.

The principal author of these regulations is Jonathan R. Black of the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:

This rulemaking establishes five special local regulations for three regattas and two swim events. Each event and its corresponding regulatory history are discussed below.

Smith Point Triathlon (Swim) is a reoccurring marine event with regulatory history. A safety zone was established for Smith Point Triathlon in 2014 when the Coast Guard issued a temporary final rule entitled, “Safety Zone; Smith Point Triathlon; Narrow Bay; Mastic Beach, NY.” The NPRM in that rulemaking was published on April, 25, 2014 in the Federal Register (79 FR 22927).

Island Beach Two Mile (Swim) is a recurring marine event with regulatory history. A safety zone was established for this event on August 9, 2014 via a temporary final rule entitled, “Special Local Regulations and Safety Zones; Marine Events in Captain of the Port Long Island Sound Zone.” This rule was published on August 12, 2014 in the Federal Register (79 FR 46997).

Riverside Yacht Club JSA of LIS Opti Champs (Regatta) is a new event with no regulatory history.

Riverfront Dragon Boat and Asian Festival (Regatta) is a recurring marine event with regulatory history. A special local regulation was established in 2014 for the Riverfront Dragon Boat and Asian Festival when the Coast Guard enforced 33 CFR 100.100(a)(1.7). This event has been included in this rule due to deviation from the location in this cite.

War Writers Campaign Kayak for Cause (Regatta) is a new event with no regulatory history.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. There is insufficient time to publish an NPRM and solicit comments from the public before these events take place. Thus, waiting for a comment period to run would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to fulfill its mission to keep the ports and waterways safe.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), and for the same reasons stated in the preceding paragraph, the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

The legal basis for this temporary rule is 33 U.S.C. 1233 which authorizes the Coast Guard to define regulatory special local regulations.

As discussed in the Regulatory History and Information section, three regattas and two swim events will take place in the Coast Guard Sector LIS COTP Zone between August 2, 2015, and August 28, 2015. The COTP Long Island Sound has determined that the five special local regulations established by this temporary final rule are necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during those events.

Smith Point Triathlon will have the swim portion of the triathlon at Smith Point County Park in Shirley, NY. The race participants will stay within 500 feet of the shore. There will be life guards in kayaks as safety boats.

Island Beach Two Mile Swim is a swim event in Long Island Sound south of Greenwich, CT. The swim course starts at Little Captain's Island and follows a course towards Belle Haven, CT turning back towards Captain's Island after a mile. There will be two safety boats at each end of the swim course and fifteen life guards in kayaks along the swim course.

Riverside Yacht Club JSA of LIS Opti Champs is a sailing event will be held in Captain Harbor south of Greenwich, CT using Optimist sailboats. There will be five boats in support of this event and four safety boats.

Riverfront Dragon Boat and Asian Festival is a dragon boat race and regatta that will be held on the Connecticut River in Hartford, CT. There will be three safety boats in support of this event.

War Writers Campaign Kayak for Cause is a kayak event that starts in Bridgeport, CT and ends in Port Jefferson, NY across Long Island Sound. There will be four safety boats accompanying the race participants across Long Island Sound.

This rule establishes five special local regulations for three regattas and two swim events. The locations of these special local regulations are as follows:

This rule establishes additional vessel movement rules within areas specifically under the jurisdiction of the special local regulations during the periods of enforcement unless authorized by the COTP or designated representative.

Public notifications will be made to the local maritime community prior to each event through the Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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

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

The Coast Guard determined that this rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action for the following reasons: (1) The enforcement of these regulated areas will be relatively short in duration, (2) persons or vessels desiring entry into the “No Entry” area or a deviance from the stipulations within the “Slow/No Wake Area” may be authorized to do so by the COTP Sector Long Island Sound or designated representative, (3) vessels can operate within the regulated area provided they do so in accordance with the regulation and (4) before the effective period, public notifications will be made to local mariners through appropriate means, which may include but are not limited to the Local Notice to Mariners as well as Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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

This temporary final rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit, anchor, or moor within a regulated area during the periods of enforcement, from August 2, 2015 to August 28, 2015. However, this temporary final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the same reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed 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. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed 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 involves the establishment of special local regulations. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

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

California Department of Transportation has requested a temporary change to the operation of the Tower Drawbridge, mile 59.0, over Sacramento River, at Sacramento, CA. The drawbridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 30 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw opens on signal from May 1 through October 31 from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. and from November 1 through April 30 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. At all other times the draw shall open on signal if at least four hours notice is given, as required by 33 CFR 117.189(a). Navigation on the waterway is commercial and recreational.

The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position from 7:50 a.m. to 10 a.m. on August 16, 2015, to allow the community to participate in the Arches Run, benefiting the Ronald McDonald House and Shriners Hospitals for Children. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with the waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised.

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

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

California Department of Transportation has requested a temporary change to the operation of the California Department of Transportation highway drawbridge across the Mokelumne River, mile 3.0, at East Isleton, CA. The drawbridge navigation span provides approximately 7 feet vertical clearance above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.175(a), the draw opens on signal from November 1 through April 30 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.; and from May 1 through October 31 from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., except that during the following periods the draw need only open for recreational vessels on the hour, 20 minutes past the hour, and 40 minutes past the hour: Saturdays, 10 a.m. until 2 p.m.; Sundays, 11 a.m. until 6 p.m.; and Memorial Day, Fourth of July and Labor Day 11 a.m. until 6 p.m.. At all other times the drawbridge shall open on signal if at least 4 hours notice is given. Navigation on the waterway is commercial, recreational, search and rescue, and law enforcement.

The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position from 6 a.m. on August 17, 2015 to 10 p.m. on August 19, 2015, due to replacing the end lift motors of the bridge. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with the waterway users. Caltrans work plan and dates have been tailored to produce the least possible impacts to waterway traffic, land traffic, businesses and potential flood response plans, while allowing the work to be performed, to ensure dependable future operation of the drawbridge.

Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies. Alternative paths for recreational vessel traffic are available via Little Potato Slough and Georgiana Slough. The Coast Guard will inform waterway users of this temporary deviation via our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners, to minimize resulting navigational impacts.

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

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

The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position from 5 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on August 23, 2015, to allow participants to cross the bridge during the San Francisco Giant Race event. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with the waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised.

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

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

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

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, waiting for a 30 day notice period to run would be impracticable.

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 regulatory safety zones.

Between 6:45 a.m. and 2:15 p.m. on August 16, 2015, a large scale swimming event will take place in the Outer Harbor, near Gallagher Beach on Lake Erie in Buffalo, NY. The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that such a large scale swimming event across a navigable waterway will pose significant risks to participants and the boating public.

With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the Carly's Crossing swimming event. This zone will be enforced from 6:45 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. on August 16, 2015. This zone will encompass a portion of the Outer Harbor, Gallagher Beach, Buffalo, NY starting at position 42°50′38.92″ N., 78°51′40.37″ W.; then West to 42°50′25.33″ N., 78°52′12.05″ W.; then East to 42°50′26.69″ N., 78°51′34.97″ W.; then North returning to the point of origin to form a triangle (NAD 83).

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

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

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

We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this 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. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Outer Harbor between 6:45 a.m. to 2:15 p.m. on August 16, 2015.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This safety zone would be effective, and thus subject to enforcement, for only 7.5 hours early in the day. Traffic may be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port. The Captain of the Port can be reached via VHF channel 16. Before the enforcement of the zone, we would issue local Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 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 are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

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

Purpose of Program: Under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) makes grants to States and public or nonprofit agencies and organizations (including institutions of higher education) to support projects that provide training, traineeships, and technical assistance (TA) designed to increase the numbers of, and improve the skills of, qualified personnel, especially rehabilitation counselors, who are trained to provide vocational, medical, social, and psychological rehabilitation services to individuals with disabilities; assist individuals with communication and related disorders; and provide other services authorized under the Rehabilitation Act.

Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 772(a)(1).

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR part 385.

We published a notice of proposed priority for this competition in the Federal Register on June 17, 2015 (80 FR 34579). That notice contained background information and our reasons for proposing the particular priority. Except for minor revisions, there are no differences between the proposed priority and this final priority.

Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the notice of proposed priority, eight parties submitted comments on the proposed priority. Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes, or suggested changes the law does not authorize us to make under the applicable statutory authority. In addition, we do not address general comments that raised concerns not directly related to the proposed priorities.

Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments follows.

Comment: Most of the commenters recommended that we modify the priority to establish two centers—one center providing assistance to designated State vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies serving individuals who are blind or visually impaired and a second center to provide assistance to designated State VR agencies that serve all other individuals with disabilities. In the alternative, these commenters recommended that if the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) decides to fund only one center, the final priority should earmark funds and require, directly or through contract or other arrangement, qualified TA staff to address the unique needs of professionals serving individuals with blindness.

The commenters stated that these recommendations are consistent with section 101(a)(2)(A) of the Rehabilitation Act, which authorizes States to designate a State agency to provide VR services to individuals who are blind or visually impaired, as well as a designated State agency to provide VR services to all other individuals with disabilities. If a second center were established to serve individuals who are blind or visually impaired, such action would recognize that these agencies and the clientele they serve deserve the same quality, level, and intensity of TA provided to designated State agencies that serve all other individuals with disabilities.

Discussion: RSA recognizes that the Rehabilitation Act authorizes a State to designate a separate VR agency to serve individuals who are blind or visually impaired, and agrees that these agencies deserve the same quality, level, and intensity of TA provided to State agencies that serve all other individuals with disabilities.

However, we believe the priority as written provides TA of the same quality, level, and intensity to all State VR agencies, regardless of type. All 80 State VR agencies (including the 24 separate State VR agencies for individuals who are blind or visually impaired) will be able to receive universal, general TA, as well as targeted, specialized TA for the five topic areas of responsibility outlined for the Workforce Innovation Technical Assistance Center (WITAC). Likewise, all 80 agencies may apply for intensive TA for the five topic areas of responsibility outlined for the WITAC. Intensive TA is intended to be individualized to the needs of the requesting State VR agency and driven by an agreement between the State VR agency requesting the intensive TA and the WITAC.

In general, the five topic areas pertain to new requirements of WIOA, which apply to all States and to all State VR agencies, and thus do not necessitate separate TA centers for agencies serving individuals who are blind or visually impaired. While implementation strategies and responsibilities of State VR agencies in States where two State VR agencies exist may differ somewhat depending on their negotiated responsibilities within the State, these differences can be addressed through the negotiated intensive TA agreement.

Additionally, we decline to set aside a portion of the funds for TA to the State VR agencies for individuals who are blind or visually impaired. As outlined above, we believe that all TA provided by the WITAC will be beneficial to State VR agencies regardless of the population that they serve, and a set-aside may result in an inefficient allocation of funds.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter stated that the WITAC appears to cover an extremely broad spectrum of issues, such as: Pre-employment transition services, compliance with section 511 of the Rehabilitation Act, competitive integrated employment strategies, integration into the State workforce development system, and transition to new performance accountability measures. The commenter was concerned about the degree to which the center will be able to provide meaningful guidance and assistance across such a wide range of topics to VR agencies nationwide, as well as about how this will mesh with the efforts of the Job Driven Vocational Rehabilitation Technical Assistance Center (JDVRTAC) and other planned instruments for assistance.

Discussion: We agree that the WITAC covers a broad spectrum of topics, but we believe that this will not be an obstacle to effective TA or produce unnecessary duplication with the work of the JDVRTAC. Rather, the common thread among the TA topics is that they all address changes required by WIOA. Further, because some topic areas are interrelated in pursuit of WIOA goals, we believe that it is reasonable for the WITAC to provide TA in each of these topic areas. The applicant will be required to describe how the center will be staffed and will provide the expertise to address all of the five topic areas in this priority. Finally, the WITAC and the JDVRTAC are cooperative agreements, which allow for oversight, coordination, and direction of project activities by RSA through the terms of the cooperative agreements. In sum, we believe that the benefits of having these WIOA-related TA topics housed together in a single center outweigh any disadvantages.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter noted that, as with the JVRDTAC, it would appear that TA classified as “intensive” would be available to a relatively small number of agencies nationally (approximately 23). The commenter suggested that criteria for selection of these sites be included in the scope of the WITAC.

Discussion: We disagree. The intent is to allow State VR agencies to request TA tailored to meet their individual needs (within the content of one or more of the five topic areas). We therefore do not want to create in the priority a rigid, one-size-fits-all set of criteria for all requests.

Further, as to the appropriate distribution of TA, the applicant will be required to describe its plan for recruiting and selecting State VR agencies as part of the application. After the grant is awarded, RSA will modify the required number of agencies to receive intensive TA, if needed, through the cooperative agreement.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter stated that the type of assistance to be provided under topic area (d) (integration of the State VR program into the workforce development system) and under topic area (e) (transition to new common performance accountability system and its required data elements) is unclear, and the commenter recommended that this assistance be consistent with the guidance and TA that the U.S. Departments of Labor (DOL) and Education, as well other WIOA core partners, provide to their own State entities. The commenter also recommended that assistance in developing contractual agreements for WIOA partnerships be included.

Discussion: We recognize that some of the topic areas may seem broad in their wording. However, this is intentional. Given the range of issues that we expect State VR agencies may experience as they begin to implement WIOA, we believe it is important to provide the WITAC with broader areas of focus, so that the center can effectively respond to the needs of the field.

We also agree that the TA provided by the WITAC needs to be consistent with the guidance and TA provided by RSA, DOL, and other WIOA core partners. As such, collaboration and coordination with other partners and TA efforts is required in the priority and will be ensured through mechanisms described in the cooperative agreement. The WITAC is also charged with gathering guidance and TA materials from these sources, and the WITAC may provide TA jointly with partners or partner TA centers as WIOA implementation efforts move forward.

As part of the TA to be provided in the “integration of the State VR program into the workforce development system” topic area, the WITAC can provide assistance to States in developing contractual agreements for WIOA partnerships. The applicant will have to describe how it will collect and disseminate contracts, related policies, and other information about State VR agency efforts with regard to implementation of WIOA's requirements as part of the knowledge development requirements in the priority.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter stated that specific guidance and TA on reporting requirements for both fiscal and programmatic changes (particularly pre-employment transition services), changes to the Case Service Report (RSA-911) data reporting, and data sharing with other WIOA core partners are essential to optimal implementation of WIOA. In addition, the commenter recommended that this guidance be provided as quickly and specifically as possible to allow States to restructure and implement the new requirements for data collection and service delivery.

Discussion: We agree that specific guidance for reporting requirements, including RSA-911 reporting changes and data sharing with other WIOA core partners, is essential to the implementation of WIOA. We also agree that guidance in these areas is needed as soon as possible.

However, it is not the responsibility of the WITAC to develop the guidance on these issues. That responsibility lies with the Federal agencies. The WITAC, on the other hand, will assist State VR agencies in implementing these new requirements as soon as practicable after the guidance is available. The WITAC will also provide TA to State VR agencies on how to use performance results to improve agency performance.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter asked how much guidance will be provided in development of Unified or Combined State Plans and how the timing of this assistance will mesh with the established deadline of March 2016 for Unified or Combined State Plan submissions. The commenter also asked if there will be a separate TA mechanism for this aspect of WIOA implementation.

Discussion: TA on these topics can be conducted through the WITAC as part of the activities related to the integration of the VR program into the workforce development system. Even though this is an area of major change, the content of the Unified or Combined State Plans is related to the implementation activities of many parts of WIOA. At this time, RSA is not planning any further investments under this program for TA on Unified or Combined State Plans.

We recognize that States are required to submit their Unified or Combined State Plans by March 2016. However, given the expected award date of this cooperative agreement, and the time that the WITAC will need to set up and onboard the necessary staff, we do not think it is reasonable to expect the WITAC to be able to provide intensive TA to a large number of States prior to the March 2016 submission deadline. However, RSA is committed to ensuring that States have the resources that they need to complete these plans, and will work with the WITAC to prioritize TA resources as needed when the award is made.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter recommended establishment of a WITAC after State VR agencies and others have had a reasonable time to digest WIOA and the final regulations so as to have a clear idea of the TA that would be needed. The commenter recommended delaying implementation of a WITAC until 2016.

Discussion: We disagree that implementation of the WITAC should be postponed until 2016. Based on RSA's experience, it will take a new TA center about one year to gather and develop information on existing and emerging practices that could relate to the implementation of WIOA in the five topic areas assigned to the WITAC. Regulations will be final during that time. Additionally, given the likely award date, we do not expect any intensive TA agreements to begin until 2016, and to have the center start from scratch in 2016 would likely delay the implementation of intensive TA agreements until 2017.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter stated that, while the list of specific TA topic areas is a good list, there ought to be flexibility for State VR agencies and the WITAC to deviate from the stated TA topic areas if they find themselves in need of WIOA TA on other topics.

Discussion: We believe that the list of WIOA topic areas is sufficiently broad to encompass TA on WIOA requirements, except for those requirements relating to employer engagement, services to employers, and knowledge of the 21st century workforce. These aspects of WIOA are primarily the purview of the JDVRTAC, with which the WITAC will be required to coordinate through the cooperative agreements of both centers.

Taking the WITAC and the JDVRTAC together, we believe that TA needs emerging from WIOA implementation can be subsumed under one or more topic areas of these centers.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter suggested that, in order to avoid duplication and stretching of resources, the WITAC should look to existing effective communities of practice that could meet identified TA needs in various areas before establishing a new one.

Discussion: We agree that avoiding duplication and prudent use of resources is important, and nothing in the current priority prohibits the use of existing communities of practice. Indeed, cross-posting materials on multiple, disparate communities of practice could be a useful tool for expanding the reach of the WITAC. However, we also believe a dedicated forum relating to the work of the WITAC will be a valuable resource for State VR staff and may help to bring together staff who would otherwise not collaborate on independent communities of practice.

Changes: None.

Final Priority:

The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to establish a Vocational Rehabilitation Workforce Innovation Technical Assistance Center (WITAC). The focus of this priority is to provide training and technical assistance (TA) to State vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies on the new statutory requirements imposed by WIOA.

The WITAC is designed to achieve, at a minimum, the following outcomes:

(a) Implementation of effective and efficient “pre-employment transition services” for students with disabilities, as set forth in section 113 of the Rehabilitation Act;

(b) Implementation by State VR agencies, in coordination with local and State educational agencies and with the Department of Labor, of the requirements in section 511 of the Rehabilitation Act that are under the purview of the Department of Education;

(c) Increased access to supported employment and customized employment services for individuals with the most significant disabilities, including youth with the most significant disabilities, receiving services under the State VR and Supported Employment programs;

(d) An increased percentage of individuals with disabilities who receive services through the State VR agency and who achieve employment outcomes in competitive integrated employment;

(e) Improved collaboration between State VR agencies and other core programs of the workforce development system; and

(f) Implementation of the new common performance accountability system under section 116 of WIOA.

The WITAC will develop and provide training and TA to State VR agency staff and related rehabilitation professionals and service providers in five topic areas related to changes made by WIOA:

(a) Provision of pre-employment transition services to students with disabilities and supported employment services to youth with disabilities;

(b) Implementation of the requirements in section 511 of the Rehabilitation Act that are under the purview of the Department of Education;

(c) Provision of resources and strategies to help individuals with disabilities achieve competitive integrated employment, including customized employment and supported employment;

(d) Integration of the State VR program into the workforce development system; and

(e) Transition to the new common performance accountability system under section 116 of WIOA, including the collection and reporting of common data elements.

To meet the requirements of this priority, the WITAC must, at a minimum, conduct the following activities:

(a) In the first year, collect information from the literature and from existing State and Federal programs about evidence-based and promising practices relevant to the work of the WITAC and make this information publicly available in a searchable, accessible, and useful format. The WITAC must review, at a minimum:

(1) Literature on evidence-based and promising practices relevant to the work of the WITAC;

(2) The results of State VR agency monitoring conducted by RSA;

(3) State VR agency program and performance data;

(4) Department of Education and Department of Labor policies and guidance on program changes made by WIOA and implementation of those changes; and

(5) Any existing State VR agency memoranda of understanding (MOUs) or agreement (MOAs) related to the work of the WITAC.

(b) In the first year, conduct a survey of relevant stakeholders and VR service providers to identify workforce development TA needs and a process by which TA solutions can be offered to State VR agencies and their partners. The WITAC must survey, at a minimum:

(1) State VR agency staff;

(2) Relevant RSA staff; and

(3) Other stakeholders, including stakeholders from the transition and special education community, the workforce development community, and the rehabilitation community.

(c) Develop and refine one or more curriculum guides for VR staff training for each of the topic areas listed in the Topic Areas section of this priority.

(a) Provide intensive, sustained TA 1 to a minimum of 23 State VR agencies and their associated rehabilitation professionals and service providers in the topic areas set out in this priority. The WITAC must provide intensive, sustained TA to a minimum of two agencies in the first year of the project and to a minimum of seven additional agencies per year in the second, third, and fourth years of the project. These are minimum requirements, and the expectation is that intensive, sustained TA will be provided, to the extent funds are available, to all of the State VR agencies that request intensive, sustained TA. This TA must include:

(1) For topic area (a), how to—

(i) Develop, manage, and implement effective pre-employment transition services to improve the transition of students with disabilities from secondary to postsecondary education and employment;

(ii) Coordinate pre-employment transition services with transition services provided under IDEA; and

(iii) Develop and implement supported employment services for youth with the most significant disabilities;

(2) For topic area (b):

(i) How to provide career-related counseling, information, and referral services to individuals entering and continuing employment at subminimum wages; and

(ii) How to implement documentation requirements for youth with disabilities seeking employment at subminimum wage, in accordance with section 511 of the Rehabilitation Act;

(3) For topic area (c), how to design and implement new services and new roles and responsibilities among partner agencies to increase the percentage of individuals achieving competitive integrated employment and to meet the supported employment and customized employment requirements of the Rehabilitation Act;

(4) For topic area (d), how to develop model relationships between State VR agencies and other core programs of the workforce development system for purposes of implementing the requirements of title I of WIOA, especially those requirements related to integration of core programs into the workforce development system; and

(5) For topic area (e), how to effectively transition to the new common performance accountability system required in section 116 of WIOA and use performance results to implement programmatic changes to improve agency performance.

(b) Provide a range of targeted, specialized TA 2 and universal, general TA 3 products and services on the topic areas in this priority. This TA must include, at a minimum, the following activities:

(1) Establishing and maintaining a state-of-the-art information technology (IT) platform sufficient to support Webinars, teleconferences, video conferences, and other virtual methods of dissemination of information and TA.

(2) Developing and maintaining a state-of-the-art archiving and dissemination system that—

(i) Provides a central location for later use of TA products, including course curricula, audiovisual materials, Webinars, examples of emerging and best practices for the topic areas in this priority, and any other TA products; and

(ii) Is open and available to the public.

(3) Providing a minimum of two Webinars or video conferences over the course of the project on each of the topic areas in this priority to describe and disseminate information about emerging and best practices in each area.

(a) Establish one or more communities of practice that focus on the topic areas in this priority and that act as vehicles for communication and exchange of information among State VR agencies and partners, including the results of TA projects that are in progress or have been completed;

(b) Communicate, collaborate, and coordinate, on an ongoing basis, with other relevant Department-funded projects and those supported by the Social Security Administration (SSA) and the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Commerce; and

(c) Maintain ongoing communication with the RSA project officer and other RSA staff as required.

To be funded under this priority, applicants must meet the application requirements in this priority. RSA encourages innovative approaches to meet these requirements, which are to:

(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Significance of the Project,” how the proposed project will address State VR agencies' capacity to implement the requirements of WIOA. To meet this requirement, the applicant must:

(1) Demonstrate knowledge of current RSA guidance and State and Federal initiatives designed to improve engagement with the workforce development system and workforce development system partners;

(2) Demonstrate knowledge of current State VR agency and other efforts to improve engagement with secondary schools, youth programs, and other programs that provide services to youth with disabilities for the purpose of assisting such youth to enter postsecondary education or competitive integrated employment; and

(3) Demonstrate knowledge of current State VR agency efforts to engage with State Medicaid, developmental disability, and mental health agencies to develop agreements and provide services leading to competitive integrated employment, including supported employment and customized employment.

(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of Project Services,” how the proposed project will—

(1) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. To meet this requirement, the applicant must provide—

(i) Measurable intended project outcomes;

(ii) A plan for how the proposed project will achieve its intended outcomes; and

(iii) A plan for communicating, collaborating, and coordinating with key staff in State VR agencies; State and local partner programs; RSA partners, such as the Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation, the National Association of State Directors of Special Education, the National Council of State Agencies for the Blind, and other TA centers; and relevant programs within SSA and the Departments of Education, Labor, Health and Human Services, and Commerce.

(2) Use a conceptual framework to develop project plans and activities, describing any underlying concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as the presumed relationships or linkages among these variables, and any empirical support for this framework.

(3) Be based on current research and make use of evidence-based practices. To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) How the current research about adult learning principles and implementation science will inform the proposed TA; and

(ii) How the proposed project will incorporate current research and evidence-based practices in the development and delivery of its products and services.

(4) Develop products and provide services that are of high quality and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended outcomes of the proposed project. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) Its proposed activities to identify or develop the knowledge base on emerging and promising practices in the five topic areas listed in the Topic Areas section of this priority;

(ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA;

(iii) Its proposed approach to targeted, specialized TA, which must identify—

(A) The intended recipients of the products and services under this approach; and

(B) Its proposed approach to measure the capacity and readiness of State VR agencies to work with the proposed project, assessing, at a minimum, their current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to effectively respond to the TA, as appropriate;

(iv) Its proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA, which must identify—

(A) The intended recipients of the products and services under this approach;

(B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of the State VR agencies to work with the proposed project, including the State VR agencies' commitment to the initiative, fit of the initiative, current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to effectively respond to the TA, as appropriate;

(C) Its proposed plan for assisting State VR agencies to build training systems that include professional development based on adult learning principles and coaching; and

(D) Its proposed plan for developing agreements with State VR agencies to provide intensive, sustained TA. The plan must describe how the agreements will outline the purposes of the TA, the intended outcomes of the TA, and the measurable objectives of the TA that will be evaluated.

(5) Develop products and implement services to maximize the project's efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the intended project outcomes; and

(ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the intended outcomes of this collaboration.

(c) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Evaluation Plan,” how the proposed project will—

(1) Measure and track the effectiveness of the TA provided. To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe its proposed approach to—

(i) Collecting data on the effectiveness of each TA activity from State VR agencies, partners, or other sources, as appropriate; and

(ii) Analyzing data and determining effectiveness of each TA activity, including any proposed standards or targets for determining effectiveness.

(2) Collect and analyze data on specific and measurable goals, objectives, and intended outcomes of the project, including measuring and tracking the effectiveness of the TA provided. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) Its proposed evaluation methodologies, including instruments, data collection methods, and analyses;

(ii) Its proposed standards or targets for determining effectiveness;

(iii) How it will use the evaluation results to examine the effectiveness of its implementation and its progress toward achieving the intended outcomes; and

(iv) How the methods of evaluation will produce quantitative and qualitative data that demonstrate whether the project and individual TA activities achieved their intended outcomes.

(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Adequacy of Project Resources,” how—

(1) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have historically been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability, as appropriate;

(2) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors have the qualifications and experience to provide TA to State VR agencies and their partners in each of the topic areas in this priority and to achieve the project's intended outcomes;

(3) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to carry out the proposed activities; and

(4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the anticipated results and benefits;

(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Management Plan,” how—

(1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the project's intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable; and

(ii) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks.

(2) Key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors will be allocated to the project and how these allocations are appropriate and adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes, including an assurance that such personnel will have adequate availability to ensure timely communications with stakeholders and RSA;

(3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and services provided are of high quality; and

(4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of perspectives, including those of State and local personnel, TA providers, researchers, and policy makers, among others, in its development and operation.

Types of Priorities: When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:

Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).

Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).

Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are issuing this final priority only on a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.

We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.

Through this priority, State VR agencies will receive TA to improve the quality of VR services and the competitive integrated employment outcomes achieved by individuals with disabilities, which ultimately will increase the percentage of individuals with disabilities who receive services through the State VR agencies who achieve competitive integrated employment outcomes. This priority would promote the efficient and effective use of Federal funds.

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

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

Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

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

On December 2, 2014, VA published in the Federal Register (79 FR 71366), a proposed rule to amend 38 CFR 3.57 and 3.58 to clarify that a veteran will not receive the dependent rate of disability compensation for a child who is adopted out of the veteran's family. In this regard, pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 1115, a veteran entitled to compensation based on a service-connected disability rating of not less than 30 percent is entitled to an additional rate of disability compensation for each of his or her children. Additionally, 38 CFR 3.58 provides that “[a] child of a veteran adopted out of the family of the veteran . . . is nevertheless a child within the meaning of that term as defined by § 3.57 and is eligible for benefits payable under all laws administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs.” However, VA believes its longstanding interpretation in § 3.58, as it applies to 38 U.S.C. 1115, is inconsistent with the statute's clear purpose to provide for payments to a veteran that are based primarily upon the veteran's needs for purposes of supporting his or her dependent family members.

VA, therefore, believes Congress did not intend for section 1115 to provide additional disability compensation to a veteran on account of a child who is adopted out of the veteran's family. In such cases, it is clear that any payment to the veteran on account of the adopted-out child would rarely, if ever, fulfill the clear purpose of section 1115 to provide for the expense of supporting that child. As such, VA is amending its regulations, particularly 38 CFR 3.57, 3.58, and 3.458, to eliminate this additional compensation paid to veterans for such children.

Any child, however, who is adopted out of the veterans family does not, as the result of the amendments to 38 CFR 3.57 and 3.58, lose any rights to receive VA benefits in the child's own right, such as dependency and indemnity compensation, which is not necessarily dependent upon a continuing, legally based parent-child relationship.

The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register (79 FR 71366) on December 2, 2014. A 60-day comment period was provided. No public comments were received regarding the proposed rule. As a result, based on the rationale set forth in the proposed rule, we adopt the provisions of the proposed rule as a final rule without change. This rule will apply as of the effective date of the final rule, namely 30 days following the date of publication of the final rule.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health, and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a “significant regulatory action” requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), unless OMB waives such review, as “any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.”

The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this regulatory action have been examined, and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at http://www.regulations.gov, usually within 48 hours after the rulemaking document is published. Additionally, a copy of the rulemaking and its impact analysis are available on VA's Web site at http://www.va.gov/orpm/, by following the link for “VA Regulations Published From FY 2004 Through Fiscal Year to Date.”

The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-12). This final rule will not directly affect small entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking is exempt from the final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of section 604.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This final rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.

This final rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-21).

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers and titles for the programs affected by this document are 64.102, Compensation for Service-Connected Deaths for Veterans' Dependents; 64.105, Pension to Veterans, Surviving Spouses, and Children; 64.109, Veterans Compensation for Service-Connected Disability; and 64.110, Veterans Dependency and Indemnity Compensation for Service-Connected Death.

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Robert L. Nabors II, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on August 7, 2015, for publication.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, VA amends 38 CFR part 3 as follows:

This final rule establishes procedures for the hearing process, including provisions governing prehearing conferences, discovery, motions, an evidentiary hearing, briefing, and issuance by the administrative law judge (ALJ) of a recommended decision on Federal acknowledgment of an Indian tribe for consideration by the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs (AS-IA). This final rule complements the BIA final rule published in the July 1, 2015 Federal Register, 80 FR 37862, that revises 25 CFR part 83 to improve the processing of petitions for Federal acknowledgment of Indian tribes. These improvements include affording the petitioner an opportunity to request a hearing before an ALJ in the Departmental Cases Hearings Division (DCHD), Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA), if the petitioner receives a negative proposed finding on Federal acknowledgment from the Office of Federal Acknowledgment (OFA).

Our proposed rule also contained procedures for a new re-petition authorization process which the BIA proposed establishing in its proposed rule. Because the BIA is not incorporating that process into the BIA final rule, our final rule does not contain procedures for that process.

The other primary differences between our proposed rule and this final rule are:

• This final rule allows only a DCHD ALJ to preside over the hearing process.

• Except under extraordinary circumstances, this final rule:

(1) Does not allow discovery;

(2) limits the scope of evidence admissible at hearing to documentation in the administrative record reviewed by OFA and testimony clarifying or explaining information in that documentation; and

(3) limits witnesses to expert witnesses and OFA staff who participated in preparation of the negative proposed finding.

• This final rule extends a few of the deadlines in the proposed rule, including allowing 15 more days to file motions to intervene, while streamlining the hearing process overall by the aforementioned limits on discovery, the scope of evidence, and witnesses.

• This final rule does not incorporate the proposed rule's provision requiring direct testimony to be submitted in writing.

• This final rule establishes procedures for obtaining protective orders limiting disclosure of information that is confidential or exempt by law from public disclosure.

The proposed rule was published on June 19, 2014. See 79 FR 35129. We extended the initial comment deadline of August 18, 2014, to September 30, 2014, see 79 FR 44150, to comport with the BIA's extension of the comment period for its proposed rule. As more fully explained in the preamble to the BIA final rule, the Department held public meetings, teleconferences, and separate consultation sessions with federally recognized Indian tribes in July and August of 2014. During the public comment period, we received seven written comment submissions on our proposed rule.

Some comments pertain to the BIA proposals to (1) eliminate the process for reconsideration of the AS-IA's determination by the Interior Board of Indian Appeals (IBIA) found at 25 CFR 83.1, (2) establish the opportunity for the hearing process under proposed 25 CFR 83.38(a) and 83.39, and (3) establish the opportunity for the re-petition authorization process under proposed 25 CFR 83.4. We address only briefly the comments we received on these and any other proposals made in the BIA proposed rule. Those proposals, along with additional comments which the BIA received, are more fully addressed in the BIA final rule.

We have reviewed each of the comments received by us and have made several changes to the proposed rule in response to these comments. The following is a summary of comments received and our responses.

The BIA's proposed rule would eliminate the process for IBIA reconsideration of the AS-IA's determination found at 25 CFR 83.11, and would replace it with a new hearing process under proposed 25 CFR 83.38(a) and 83.39. The new process would be governed by procedures in our proposed rule. One commenter stated that the IBIA reconsideration process should be retained because it allows interested parties other than the petitioner to seek independent review of acknowledgment determinations that is not available under the proposed hearing process.

Response: The BIA final rule retains the proposal to delete the IBIA reconsideration process and allows for a hearing on a negative proposed finding. See the responses to comments in the BIA final rule.

Proposed §§ 4.1060 through 4.1063 identify procedures for re-petitioning under 25 CFR 83.4(b) of the BIA proposed rule. Under that proposed re-petition process, an OHA judge could authorize an unsuccessful petitioner to re-petition for Federal acknowledgment if certain conditions are met. One condition, identified by some commenters as the “third-party veto,” would require written consent for re-petitioning from any third party that participated as a party in an administrative reconsideration or Federal Court appeal concerning the unsuccessful petition. Two commenters opposed the proposed “third-party veto” and one opposed allowing for any re-petitioning.

Response: The final rule does not include the procedures for the re-petition authorization process because the BIA final rule did not incorporate that process. See the responses to comments in the BIA final rule.

25 CFR 83.10(a) in the BIA proposed rule attempted to clarify the meaning of the “reasonable likelihood” standard of proof found at 25 CFR 83.6(d). Section 4.1047 in our proposed rule repeated the language of proposed § 83.10(a). One commenter supported the “reasonable likelihood” standard of proof in proposed § 4.1047, while one commenter stated that the proposed definition for “reasonable likelihood” comes from the criminal law context and, as such, is too low.

Response: In its final rule, the BIA concludes, in light of commenters' concerns that its proposed rule changed the standard of proof, that its final rule would retain the current “reasonable likelihood” standard of proof and discard the proposed interpreting language. This final rule does the same. See § 4.1048. The Department will continue to interpret “reasonable likelihood of the validity of the facts” consistent with its interpretations in prior decisions and the plain language of the phrase, and will strive to prevent a trend toward a more stringent interpretation over time.

A few commenters requested the addition of requirements to notify local governments of petitions, OFA proposed findings, and elections of hearings.

Response: The BIA final rule requires more notice to local governments by adding that the Department will notify the local, county-level government in writing of the receipt of the petition and other actions, in addition to notifying the State attorney general and governor. See 25 CFR 83.22, 83.34, 83.39.

25 CFR 83.38(a) in the BIA proposed rule would allow only a petitioner receiving a negative proposed finding to request a hearing. One commenter believed, in the interest of fairness, that other interested parties should be able to request a hearing after a positive proposed finding.

Proposed § 4.1021 would allow for intervention of right by any entity who files a motion to intervene demonstrating that the entity has an interest that may be adversely affected by the final determination. Several commentators asserted that State or local governmental entities should be recognized automatically as intervenors.

Response: In its final rule the BIA adopts the proposed approach of allowing only a petitioner receiving a negative proposed finding to request a hearing. See 25 CFR 83.38(a). The BIA explains, in part, that

Our final rule adopts the proposed rule approach of allowing for intervention of right by any entity who files a motion to intervene demonstrating that the entity has an interest that may be adversely affected by the final determination. See § 4.1021. Conditioning intervention on the filing of a motion showing such an interest is not a heavy burden. It allows other parties the opportunity to express opposing viewpoints to facilitate confirmation of whether the entity indeed has such an interest.

Proposed § 4.1050 would require issuance of a recommended decision within 180 days after issuance of the docketing notice, unless the ALJ issues an order finding good cause to issue the recommended decision at a later date. A few commenters stated that this time limit is too aggressive and recommended lengthening the time period. One added that, at a minimum, proposed § 4.1050 should allow for an automatic 90-day extension of the time limit upon the petitioner's request and that the OHA judge should liberally grant further extension requests, especially where the petitioner needs more time to prepare its case due to resource limitations.

Proposed § 4.1021 would require that a motion to intervene be filed within 15 days after election of the hearing. A few commenters asserted that this time period is too short.

25 CFR 83.38 in the BIA proposed rule would allow the petitioner 60 days after the end of the comment period for a negative proposed finding to elect a hearing and/or respond to any comments. If the petitioner elects a hearing, the petitioner must list in its written election the witnesses and exhibits it intends to present at the hearing. One commenter stated that the 60-day period for the petitioner to provide witness and exhibit information is too short.

Response: To promote efficiency but lessen the burden of complying with the 180-day time limit for the hearing process, the final rule retains the 180-day time limit while streamlining the hearing process by limiting discovery, the scope of evidence, and witnesses. See §§ 4.1031, 4.1042, 4.1046. We do not anticipate that a petitioner's limited resources will substantially impede compliance with the time limit for several reasons. First, the petitioner should have already diligently gathered all relevant evidence and submitted it to OFA. The purposes of the hearing process are to allow for clarification of information in the OFA administrative record, to focus on the key issues and evidence, and to produce a recommended decision on those issues by an independent tribunal, which will ultimately promote transparency in and the integrity of the process. Second, in keeping with these purposes, the final rule limits discovery, the persons who may testify, and the scope of admissible evidence to documentation from OFA's administrative record and testimony clarifying and explaining the information in that documentation. See §§ 4.1031, 4.1042, 4.1046. These limits will lessen resource expenditures for all parties. Third, the final rule retains the proposed provision allowing the ALJ to extend the 180-day time limit for good cause. See § 4.1051. Allowing a petitioner an automatic 90-day extension upon request does not promote efficiency or diligence and hence is less desirable than the proposed and adopted provision allowing for extensions for good cause.

Some adjustments to timeframes have been made to address the comments, including doubling the time period for intervention from 15 days to 30 days. See § 4.1021. The BIA final rule also allows an extra 60 days for the petitioner to provide witness and exhibit information in the election of hearing by establishing that the petitioner's period to respond to comments on OFA's negative proposed finding and period for election of a hearing run consecutively rather than simultaneously. See 25 CFR 83.38.

In the proposed rule, we invited comment on whether the hearing record should include all evidence in OFA's administrative record for the petition or be limited to testimony and exhibits specifically identified by the parties. A few commenters stated that the hearing record should encompass the whole administrative record plus any information submitted in the hearing.

Response: A primary purpose of the hearing process is to inform the AS-IA's final determination by focusing in on the key issues and evidence and producing a recommended decision on those issues from an independent tribunal. To that end, under the final rule, the hearing record will not automatically include the entire administrative record reviewed by OFA, but only those portions which are considered sufficiently important to be offered by the parties as exhibits and to be admitted into evidence by the ALJ. While the AS-IA may consider not only the hearing record, but also OFA's entire administrative record, we believe that an independent review of the key issues and evidence will be invaluable to the AS-IA.

The final rule does limit admissible evidence to documentation in the OFA administrative record and to testimony clarifying or explaining the information in that documentation. See § 4.1046. The final rule also limits who may testify to expert witnesses and OFA staff who participated in preparation of the negative proposed finding. See § 4.1042. The ALJ may admit other evidence or allow other persons to testify only under extraordinary circumstances.

These limits will afford the parties the opportunity to clarify the record, without expanding the record beyond what was before OFA. The limits will encourage the petitioner and all others to be diligent in gathering and presenting to OFA all their relevant evidence and discourage strategic withholding of evidence. This will ensure that OFA's proposed finding is based on the most complete record possible, allowing the ALJ to focus on discrete issues in dispute if a hearing is requested.

The BIA received comments on its proposed rule expressing concern that petitions may contain confidential information that should be protected from disclosure. Those comments prompted the addition of a new section in this rule containing procedures for obtaining protective orders limiting disclosure of information which is confidential or exempt by law from public disclosure.

A corresponding change has been made in one of the criteria for allowing discovery in § 4.1031(b). Proposed § 4.1031(b)(4) would require a showing “[t]hat any trade secrets or proprietary information can be adequately safeguarded.” The phrase “trade secrets or proprietary information” has been changed to “confidential information” to better reflect the type of information which may need safeguarding.

Regarding discovery generally, proposed § 4.1031 would allow for discovery by agreement of the parties or by order of the judge if certain criteria are met. Those criteria are similar to standards typically used by various tribunals.

The final rule limits discovery more strictly, eliminating discovery by agreement of the parties, and requiring not only that those criteria be met, but also that extraordinary circumstances exist to justify the discovery. Consistent with these limitations, the final rule removes many provisions addressing the details of discovery, allowing the ALJ to exercise his or her discretion to tailor discovery in the rare instance where extraordinary circumstances exist.

These changes were prompted in part by general comments that the proposed 180-day time limit for the hearing process is too short. Also influential were more specific comments that petitioners may lack resources to engage in prehearing procedures or to prepare their cases in a timely manner in light of the expedited nature of the hearing process.

Discovery can be time-consuming and require large expenditures of resources, and thus could be burdensome for petitioners and other parties as well, especially given the time sensitive nature of the expedited hearing process. Limiting discovery will alleviate those burdens, leaving more time and resources for other case preparation activities.

This benefit outweighs the impediment to case preparation, if any, that limiting discovery may pose. The need for discovery should be rare in light of the case preparation that occurs prior to the petitioner's election of a hearing, the limited scope of the hearing record, and the availability of OFA's administrative record to all parties. In the rare instances where extraordinary circumstances justify discovery, the ALJ may customize it to serve justice while striving to keep case preparation moving forward in a timely manner.

In the proposed rule, any of several different employees of OHA could be assigned to preside as the judge over the hearing process: An administrative law judge appointed under 5 U.S.C. 3105, an administrative judge (AJ), or an attorney designated by the OHA Director. See § 4.1001, definition of “judge.” We invited comments on who is an appropriate OHA judge to preside. Two commenters stated that an ALJ is most appropriate. One preferred an AJ. Most identified impartiality or independence as a desirable trait. One stated that regardless of what type of judge presides over the hearing, the judge should have some background in Indian law.

Response: The final rule establishes that the judge presiding over hearings will be a DCHD ALJ (see § 4.1001, definition of ALJ), because DCHD ALJs are experienced and skilled at presiding over hearings and managing procedural matters to facilitate justice. They also have some knowledge of Indian law and their independence is protected and impartiality fostered by laws which, among other things, exempt them from performance ratings, evaluation, and bonuses (see 5 U.S.C. 4301(2)(D), 5 CFR 930.206); vest the Office of Personnel Management rather than the Department with authority over the ALJs' compensation and tenure (see 5 U.S.C. 5372, 5 CFR 930.201-930.211); and provide that most disciplinary actions against ALJs may be taken only for good cause established and determined by the Merit Systems Protection Board on the record after opportunity for a hearing (see 5 U.S.C. 7521).

One commenter strongly supported the provisions recognizing a petitioner's right to orally cross-examine OFA staff who participated in preparation of the negative proposed finding, requiring submittal of written direct testimony prior to the hearing for efficiency, and allowing parties to supplement and amend testimony when absolutely necessary. This commenter also stated that the proposed rule would require only senior Department employees to be subject to subpoena or discovery. The commenter urged us to clarify that all OFA staff and consultants who participated in preparation of the proposed finding would be subject to discovery and subpoena under proposed § 4.1031(h)(3) and proposed § 4.1037(a)(2).

Response: These proposed sections would simply limit deposing and issuing subpoenas to senior Department employees to instances where certain conditions are met; the sections would not limit discovery and subpoenas for other OFA staff and consultants who participated in preparation of the negative proposed finding. Nevertheless, proposed § 4.1037(a)(2), redesignated § 4.1035(a)(2), has been reworded to clarify this with respect to subpoenas. The provisions of proposed § 4.1031(h)(3) pertaining to depositions have not been changed but they have been moved to § 4.1033(b)(3).

Please note, however, with respect to all persons, the final rule limits discovery to situations where extraordinary circumstances exist. See § 4.1031. Under the final rule, in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, OFA staff who participated in the preparation of the negative proposed finding still may be deposed for the preservation of testimony, as opposed to for discovery purposes, and may be subpoenaed. However, if the staff member is a senior Department employee, the deposition or subpoena will be allowed only if certain conditions are met. See §§ 4.1033(b)(3) and 4.1035(a)(2).

The proposed rule's requirement to submit direct testimony in writing prior to the hearing is not being incorporated into the final rule. This requirement was designed to shorten the hearing to facilitate compliance with the 180-day time limit for issuance of the recommended decision. However, the requirement is burdensome for the parties and the burden is no longer justified because the final rule adopts other measures to streamline the hearing process. Those measures include limiting discovery, the scope of admissible evidence, and the witnesses who may testify. See §§ 4.1031, 4.1042, and 4.1046.

One commenter made suggestions for facilitating petitioner participation in the hearing process, stating that hearings should be held in a location near the petitioner, that telephonic conferences should be allowed, and that filing and service of documents by priority mail should be allowed as an alternative to the proposed rule's requirements that overnight mail or delivery services be used for both filing and service. See proposed § 4.1012(b) and proposed § 4.1013(c). These suggestions are based in part upon the commenter's stated concern that a petitioner's participation may be impeded by a lack of resources. The commenter also observed that some petitioners may be in remote locations without access to overnight mail or delivery services.

Response: A standard hearing procedure is for the ALJ to consider the convenience of all parties, their representatives, and witnesses in setting a place for hearing, but not to unduly favor the preferences of one party over another. A provision mandating that the hearing be held in a location near the petitioner would deviate from this fair standard in all cases without sufficient justification. Indeed, in some cases the petitioner itself may not favor a hearing location near to it, such as where its witnesses are not located near the petitioner. The selection of a hearing location is best left to the discretion of the ALJ. To guide the exercise of that discretion, a provision has been added to the final rule incorporating the fair standard that the ALJ will consider the convenience of all parties, their representatives, and witnesses in setting a place for hearing.

Regarding telephonic conferences, both the proposed and final rule include a provision that conferences will ordinarily be held by telephone. See § 4.1022(d) and proposed § 4.1022(c).

The suggestion to allow for filing and service of documents by priority mail has not been adopted. Requiring filing and service by overnight delivery promotes compliance with time limits for specific actions as well as with the overall time limit for the hearing process of 180 days. The use and cost of overnight delivery can be avoided by filing and serving a document by facsimile transmission and regular mail if the document is 20 pages or less. See § 4.1012(b)(iii). Given the limits on discovery and admissible evidence, we do not anticipate a large volume of exchanges of documents exceeding 20 pages. Nevertheless, to address the rare situation where mandating strict compliance with the prescribed filing and service methods would be unfair, the final rule adds language to both §§ 4.1012(b) and 4.1013(c) giving the ALJ discretion to allow deviation from those methods.

In the proposed rule we included summary decision procedures, see proposed § 4.1023, and invited comments on whether the final rule should include them. A commenter stated that they will be beneficial but that there should be a safeguard to address situations where petitioners lack the resources to respond to motions for summary decision.

Response: We agree that summary decision procedures should be included in the final rule because they will be beneficial, but we do not believe that such a safeguard is warranted. If a petitioner elects to initiate the hearing process, fairness dictates that it should be prepared to expend resources to defend its position. Summary decision procedures are designed to minimize those expenditures by avoiding costly hearings, where appropriate, thus conserving the resources of all parties. And, implementation of such a safeguard would entail expenditures in resolving whether petitioner's financial status merits bypassing the summary decision procedures.

Further, the final rule modifies the summary decision procedures in the proposed rule to conform to the present version of Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This includes the addition of a provision that allows the ALJ to issue appropriate orders other than a recommended summary decision where a party fails to properly address another party's assertion of fact. See § 4.1023(e). Thus, if a party does not respond properly to a motion for summary decision because of a lack of resources or otherwise, the ALJ has discretion whether or not to issue a recommended summary decision. Even if the ALJ feels that summary decision in a given case is technically proper, sound judicial policy and the proper exercise of judicial discretion may prompt the ALJ to deny the motion and permit the case to be developed fully at hearing since the movant's ultimate legal rights can always be protected in the course of or even after hearing. See, e.g., Olberding v. U.S. Dept. of Defense, Dept. of the Army, 564 F.Supp. 907 (S.D. Iowa 1982), aff'd 709 F.2d 621. Accordingly, flexible summary decision procedures are included in the final rule without a specific safeguard for petitioners lacking resources.

One commenter stated that the proposed rule should allow DNA results to be used to determine “Indian Blood Line” and qualify people as “Indian.”

Response: DNA results may be admitted into evidence if they satisfy the generally applicable requirements for the admissibility of evidence found at § 4.1046(a), including that evidence be probative. The ALJ is experienced and skilled at evaluating the admissibility of evidence and there is no good justification for including in the final rule a provision specifically addressing the admissibility of DNA results.

The following discussion briefly describes the changes the final rule makes to the proposed rule, while the complete, final regulatory text follows this section. We do not discuss regulations that have not been changed or that were changed only in minor ways such as by correcting regulatory citations, restyling, or substituting the term “ALJ” for “judge” or “DCHD” for “OHA,” see § 4.1001 discussed below. The reader may wish to consult the preamble of the proposed rule and the “Comments on the Proposed Rule and the Department's Responses” portion of this preamble for additional explanation of the regulations.

This section in the proposed rule contained definitions for “OHA” and “judge,” with judge being defined to include several different employees of OHA who could be assigned to preside over the hearing process: an administrative law judge appointed under 5 U.S.C. 3105, an administrative judge (AJ), or an attorney designated by the OHA Director. The definitions of “OHA” and “judge” have been removed and replaced with definitions “DCHD” and “ALJ,” respectively, so that only a DCHD ALJ may preside over the hearing process. Those terms are substituted for OHA and judge in many other sections of this final rule.

Because the final rule removes proposed §§ 4.1060 through 4.1063 containing the re-petition authorization process, the definitions of “re-petition authorization process” and “unsuccessful petitioner” in this section of the proposed rule have also been removed and the definition of “representative” has been modified.

Because the final rule removes proposed §§ 4.1060 through 4.1063 containing the re-petition authorization process, those portions of this section pertaining to that process have also been removed: Paragraph (b) and the reference to that process in paragraph (c). Accordingly, paragraph (c) has been redesignated paragraph (b).

Because the final rule removes proposed §§ 4.1060 through 4.1063 containing the re-petition authorization process, those portions of this section pertaining to that process have also been removed: Paragraph (d) and the reference to that process in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c). The remaining text of § 4.1003 has been rearranged but not altered in meaning, except for the following. Because proposed § 4.1017(a) has been modified to preclude ex parte communications in accordance with 43 CFR 4.27, proposed § 4.1003 has been modified to state that the provisions of 43 CFR part 4, subpart B do not apply, “except as provided in § 4.1017(a).”

Because the final rule removes proposed §§ 4.1060 through 4.1063 containing the re-petition authorization process, that portion of this section referencing that process has also been removed.

Because, under the final rule, only an ALJ employed by DCHD may preside over the hearing process, the place of filing has been changed to DCHD. In the proposed rule, this section provides that documents must be filed with the Office of the Director, OHA, because several different types of OHA employees from various OHA organizations could be assigned to serve as the judge presiding over the hearing process. This section provides relevant contact information for DCHD, and identifies the methods by which documents can be filed there.

Because the final rule modifies § 4.1031 to limit discovery to situations where extraordinary circumstances exist, the ALJ's listed power in this section to authorize discovery has been qualified so that discovery may be authorized “under extraordinary circumstances.” The final rule also adds to this section's list of ALJ powers the power to impose non-monetary sanctions for a person's failure to comply with an ALJ order or provision of this subpart. This addition substitutes for proposed § 4.1036, which pertained to the imposition of sanctions and which has been eliminated. See § 4.1036.

Proposed § 4.1017 prohibits ex parte communications in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 554(d), which applies only to adjudications required by statute to be determined on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing. Because the hearing process is not such an adjudication, § 4.1017 has been reworded to prohibit ex parte communications in accordance with 43 CFR 4.27(b). While § 4.27(b) does not have the section 554(d) prohibition against the presiding hearing officer being responsible to or subject to the supervision or direction of the investigating or prosecuting agency, this difference is immaterial because ALJs are not responsible to or subject to the supervision or direction of OFA or the AS-IA.

In furtherance of the Department's policy of applying each criterion for Federal acknowledgment consistently with, and no more stringently than, its application in prior Departmental final decisions, § 4.1019 has been added to identify how a party may submit prior decisions for the ALJ's consideration. The ALJ will consider proper submittals of relevant Departmental final decisions and the ALJ's recommended decision should be consistent therewith.

The BIA's final companion rule changes the place for filing a petitioner's election of hearing from OFA, as proposed, to the DCHD (within OHA). See 25 CFR 83.38(a). To reflect this change, the final rule slightly modifies § 4.1020 and revises its title to read: “What will DCHD do upon receiving the election of hearing from a petitioner?” Also, under the final rule, OFA will not be sending the entire administrative record to DCHD, but instead will send only a copy of the proposed finding, critical documents from the administrative record that are central to the portions of the negative proposed finding at issue, and any comments and evidence and responses sent in response to the proposed finding. See 25 CFR 83.39(a).

This section doubles the period for filing a motion to intervene from the proposed 15 days to 30 days after issuance of the hearing election notice under 25 CFR 83.39(a). Another modification pertains to the proposed provisions requiring that a motion to intervene include the movant's position with respect to the issues of material fact raised in the election of hearing and precluding an intervenor from raising issues of material fact beyond those raised in the election. See proposed § 4.1021(b)(2) and (f)(3). Those provisions have been modified to apply not only to issues of material fact, but also to issues of law. See § 4.1021(b)(2) and (f)(3).

The final rule also eliminates proposed paragraph (e)(4), which states that the ALJ, in determining whether permissive intervention is appropriate, will consider “[t]he effect of intervention on the Department's implementation of its statutory mandates.” This language, like much of the proposed rule, was patterned after language in the hydropower hearing regulations at 43 CFR part 45. The statutory provisions governing those hearings imposed certain requirements, including that the hearing process be completed in 90 days. There are no similar statutory mandates applicable to the hearing process addressed in this rule. Therefore, paragraph (e)(4) has been eliminated.

This section extends the deadline for conducting the initial prehearing conference from the proposed 35 days to 55 days after issuance of the docketing notice, because the preceding deadline for filing a motion to intervene is being extended under § 4.1021. This section also removes written testimony from the list of topics for discussion at the initial prehearing conference under paragraph (a) and removes discovery from that list and the topics for discussion at the parties' meeting under paragraph (e). These topics have been removed because they will rarely be discussed, given that the final rule restricts the use of discovery to extraordinary circumstances and eliminates the requirement in proposed § 4.1042 to submit direct testimony in writing.

This section has been reorganized and reworded to conform to the latest version of Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Most of the changes are not substantive. Paragraph (e) does afford the ALJ more flexibility in addressing situations where a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party's assertion of fact, allowing the ALJ to issue any appropriate order. Paragraph (f) makes explicit the ALJ's authority to issue, after giving notice and a reasonable opportunity for the parties to respond, a recommended summary decision independent of a motion for recommended summary decision. References to forms of discovery have been eliminated from the list of materials used to support a parties' position because the final rule restricts discovery to extraordinary circumstances and we expect that the use of discovery will be rare.

Proposed § 4.1031 would allow for discovery by agreement of the parties or by order of the judge if the certain criteria in paragraph (b) are met. Those criteria are similar to standards typically used by various tribunals.

This section of the final rule limits discovery more strictly, requiring not only that those criteria be met, but also that extraordinary circumstances exist to justify the discovery. Further, discovery by agreement of the parties has been eliminated.

Because of these changes and the expectation that the use of discovery will be rare, this section has been renamed and modified as follows: (1) Proposed paragraphs (f) and (g), addressing discovery of materials prepared for hearing and facts known or opinions held by experts, and proposed paragraph (i), pertaining to completion of discovery, have been eliminated; and (2) proposed paragraph (h), which would limit depositions to those for the purpose of preserving testimony as opposed to for discovery purposes, has also been eliminated. However, the criteria in proposed paragraph (h) for the ALJ to authorize depositions for preserving testimony have been moved to a new § 4.1033. The effect of modification (2) is that depositions for discovery purposes may now be allowed, but, like other discovery, only under extraordinary circumstances and if otherwise in accordance with § 4.1031.

Consistent with the final rule's extension of the deadlines for filing motions to intervene and conducting the initial prehearing conference, this section also extends the deadlines for filing discovery motions, if any, from the proposed 20 days to 30 days after issuance of the docketing notice for discovery sought between the petitioner and OFA and from the proposed 30 days to 50 days after issuance of the docketing notice for discovery sought between a full intervenor and another party.

One of the criteria for allowing discovery in proposed paragraph (b) is “[t]hat any trade secrets or proprietary information can be adequately safeguarded.” The phrase “trade secrets or proprietary information” has been changed to “confidential information.”

Because of the final rule's stricter limitations on discovery and the expectation that the use of discovery will be rare, proposed § 4.1032(a), addressing supplementation or amendment of discovery responses, has been deleted and the other paragraphs have been redesignated accordingly. For the same reason, the deadline for updating witness and exhibit lists has been changed from the proposed 10 days after the date set for completion of discovery to 15 days prior to the hearing date, unless otherwise ordered by the ALJ.

Proposed § 4.1033 pertains to written interrogatories. Because of the final rule's stricter limitations on discovery and the expectation that the use of discovery will be rare, proposed § 4.1033 has been eliminated and a new § 4.1033, pertaining to depositions for the purpose of preserving testimony, has been added.

Proposed § 4.1031(h) contains criteria for the ALJ to authorize depositions for the purpose of preserving testimony. Proposed § 4.1034 contained a long delineation of procedures for those depositions. Section 4.1033 is a new, much shorter section pertaining to depositions for preserving testimony, and states that depositions for discovery purposes are governed by § 4.1031.

This section incorporates the criteria in proposed § 4.1031(h) and the requirements for a motion and notice for a deposition in proposed § 4.1034(a). Both proposed § 4.1031(h) and proposed § 4.1034 have been eliminated.

We have created a much shorter deposition section because we expect that depositions will be conducted rarely, given the new limits on the scope of the hearing record and on the persons who may testify. In the absence of the long delineation of procedures, the ALJ may customize the deposition procedures to serve justice while striving to keep case preparation moving forward in a timely manner.

Proposed § 4.1034, containing a long delineation of procedures for depositions for preserving testimony, has been eliminated. A new § 4.1033 has been added, as explained in the immediately preceding paragraphs, to address depositions for preserving testimony.

This new section is being added to establish procedures for obtaining protective orders limiting disclosure of information which is confidential or exempt by law from public disclosure. Under this section, a party or a prospective witness or deponent may file a motion requesting a protective order to limit from disclosure to other parties or to the public a document or testimony containing information which is confidential or exempt by law from public disclosure. Ordinarily, documents and testimony introduced into the public hearing process are presumed to be public so this section requires the movant to describe the information sought to be protected and explain, among other things, why it should not be disclosed and how disclosure would be harmful. In issuing a protective order, the ALJ may make any order which justice requires to protect the person, consistent with the mandatory public disclosure requirements of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b), and other applicable law.

Proposed § 4.1035 pertains to requests for the production of documents and other tangible things. Because of the final rule's stricter limitations on discovery and the expectation that the use of discovery will be rare, proposed § 4.1035 has been eliminated.

Proposed § 4.1036 delineates the circumstances under which the ALJ could impose sanctions and the types of sanctions imposable. The focus is on sanctions for failures relating to discovery. Because of the final rule's stricter limitations on discovery and the expectation that the use of discovery will be rare, proposed § 4.1036 has been eliminated. However, a shorter provision acknowledging the ALJ's power to impose sanctions has been added to § 4.1014.

Because of the elimination of proposed § 4.1035 and proposed § 4.1036, proposed § 4.1037 has been redesignated § 4.1035. Paragraph (a)(2) of this section has been reworded to clarify that a party may subpoena any OFA employee who participated in the preparation of the negative proposed finding, except if the employee is a senior Department employee, the party must show that certain conditions are met.

A new paragraph (d)(3)(ii) has been added to this section because of the final rule's new limits on witnesses and the scope of admissible evidence. See §§ 4.1042 and 4.1046. That paragraph identifies the following as a justification for the ALJ to quash or modify a subpoena: The subpoena “[r]equires evidence beyond the limits on witnesses and evidence found in §§ 4.1042 and 4.1046.” Proposed paragraphs (d)(3)(ii) and (d)(3)(iii) have been redesignated as (d)(3)(iii) and (d)(3)(iv), respectively.

Proposed § 4.1040 provides that the hearing would generally be held “within 20 days after the date for completion of discovery,” which would be approximately within 90 days after issuance of the docketing notice. Because of the final rule's stricter limitations on discovery and the expectation that the use of discovery will be rare, the quoted language has been changed to “within 90 days after the date DCHD issues the docketing notice under § 4.1020(a)(3).”

With respect to where the hearing will be held, this section states that the ALJ “will consider the convenience of all parties, their representatives, and witnesses in setting the time and place for hearing.”

Proposed § 4.1041(b) provides that the petitioner would have the right to cross-examine OFA staff who participated in the preparation of the negative proposed finding. Because this provision might be interpreted as precluding other parties from cross-examining such staff, § 4.1041 has been reorganized and reworded to make clear that each party has the right to cross-examine such staff if called as a witness by another party.

Proposed § 4.1042 has been renamed and redesignated § 4.1043.

The final rule adds this section which limits the persons who may testify, except under extraordinary circumstances, to (1) persons who qualify as expert witnesses, and (2) OFA staff who participated in the preparation of the negative proposed finding.

Proposed § 4.1042 has been renamed and redesignated § 4.1043. The provisions in proposed § 4.1042 requiring the submittal of direct testimony in writing and detailing the requirements for written testimony have been eliminated. Proposed §§ 4.1042(c)(1) and (c)(2) contain minutiae for telephone testimony that are obvious matters of standard practice which have also been eliminated. The remainder of proposed § 4.1042 has been reorganized and reworded and incorporated into § 4.1043 without change in meaning.

Proposed § 4.1043 has been redesignated § 4.1044.

Proposed § 4.1044 has been redesignated § 4.1045 and modified by adding paragraph (b) and redesignating the following paragraphs accordingly. Paragraph (b) recognizes the ALJ's authority, on his or her own initiative, to admit into evidence any document from OFA's administrative record, provided the parties are notified and given an opportunity to comment. This modification is consistent with the modification to § 4.1023, which explicitly recognizes the ALJ's authority to issue, after giving notice and a reasonable opportunity for the parties to respond, a recommended summary decision independent of a motion for recommended summary decision.

Proposed paragraph (c), redesignated paragraph (d) in the final rule, would allow the ALJ, at the request of any party, to take official notice of certain matters, including public records of any Department party. The term “any Department party” derives from procedures governing hydropower hearings at 43 CFR 45.54(c), is confusing in its application to the hearing process under these Federal acknowledgment regulations, and would allow the taking of official notice of matters in OFA's administrative record. The better mechanism for admitting into evidence materials from OFA's administrative record is the parties offering them for admission at hearing. Therefore, the provision has been reworded to allow the ALJ to take official notice of public records of the “Department,” except materials in OFA's administrative record.

Proposed § 4.1045 has been redesignated § 4.1046 and modified to limit the scope of admissible evidence to documentation in OFA's administrative record, and testimony clarifying or explaining the information in that documentation, except if the party seeking to admit the information explains why the information was not submitted for inclusion in OFA's administrative record and demonstrates that extraordinary circumstances exist justifying admission of the information.

Proposed § 4.1046 has been redesignated § 4.1047 and states that the hearing must be transcribed verbatim. This section also states that transcripts will be presumed to be correct, and includes procedures for correcting a transcript.

Proposed § 4.1047 has been redesignated § 4.1048. Proposed § 4.1047 attempted to clarify the meaning of the “reasonable likelihood” standard of proof found at 25 CFR 83.6(d). The final rule retains the current “reasonable likelihood” standard of proof and eliminates the proposed interpreting language.

Proposed § 4.1048 has been redesignated § 4.1049 and modified to allow the ALJ to admit evidence after the close of the hearing record in accordance with the modification at § 4.1045(b)(1), which authorizes the ALJ to admit evidence on his or her own initiative. See § 4.1045.

Proposed § 4.1049 has been redesignated § 4.1050.

Proposed § 4.1050 has been redesignated § 4.1051.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.

E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The E.O. directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

The Department of the Interior certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. It will not result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. The rule's requirements will not result in a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. Nor will this rule have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of the U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises because the rule is limited to Federal acknowledgment of Indian tribes.

This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required.

Under the criteria in Executive Order 12630, this rule does not affect individual property rights protected by the Fifth Amendment nor does it involves a compensable “taking.” A takings implication assessment is therefore not required.

Under the criteria in Executive Order 13132, this rule has no 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.

This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Specifically, this rule has been reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and written to minimize litigation; and is written in clear language and contains clear legal standards.

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments,” 59 FR 22951 (May 4, 1994), supplemented by Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 6, 2000), and 512 DM 2, the Department has assessed the impact of this rule on Tribal trust resources and has determined that it does not directly affect Tribal resources. The rules are procedural and administrative in nature. However, the Department has consulted with federally recognized Indian tribes regarding the companion proposed rule being published concurrently by the BIA. That rule is an outgrowth of the “Discussion Draft” of the Federal acknowledgment rule, which the Department distributed to federally recognized Indian tribes in June 2013, and on which the Department hosted five consultation sessions with federally recognized Indian tribes throughout the country in July and August 2013. Several federally recognized Indian tribes submitted written comments on that rule. The Department considered each tribe's comments and concerns and has addressed them, where possible. The Department will continue to consult on that rule during the public comment period and tribes are encouraged to provide feedback on this proposed rule during those sessions as well.

The information collection requirements are subject to an exception under 25 CFR part 1320 and therefore are not covered by the Paperwork Reduction Act.

This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment because it is of an administrative, technical, and procedural nature. See 43 CFR 46.210(i). No extraordinary circumstances exist that would require greater review under the National Environmental Policy Act.

This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

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

NMFS prohibited directed fishing for groundfish, other than pollock, by non-Rockfish Program catcher vessels using trawl gear in the Western and Central Regulatory Areas of the GOA, effective 1200 hours, A.l.t., May 3, 2015 (May 6, 2015, 80 FR 25967) under § 679.21(i)(7)(i).

On August 10, 2015, NMFS published an emergency rule (80 FR 47864, August 10, 2015) establishing a Chinook salmon prohibited species catch (PSC) limit of 1,600 for non-Rockfish Program catcher vessels directed fishing for groundfish, other than pollock, using trawl gear in the Western and Central Regulatory Areas of the GOA that is available from August 10, 2015 until December 31, 2015 (§ 679.21(i)(8)). Therefore, in accordance with § 679.25(a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(i)(C), and (a)(2)(iii)(D), and to fully utilize the 2015 groundfish total allowable catch available for non-Rockfish Program catcher vessels directed fishing for groundfish, other than pollock, using trawl gear in the Western and Central Regulatory Areas of the GOA, NMFS is terminating the previous closure and is opening directed fishing for non-Rockfish Program catcher vessels directed fishing for groundfish, other than pollock, using trawl gear in the Western and Central Regulatory Areas of the GOA.

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and § 679.25(c)(1)(ii) as such a requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay opening directed fishing for groundfish, other than pollock, by non-Rockfish Program catcher vessels using trawl gear in the Western and Central Regulatory Areas of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of August 7, 2015.

The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

Without this inseason adjustment, NMFS could not allow the fishery for groundfish, other than pollock, by non-Rockfish Program catcher vessels using trawl gear in the Western and Central Regulatory Areas of the GOA to be harvested in an expedient manner and in accordance with the regulatory schedule. Under § 679.25(c)(2), interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this action to the above address until August 25, 2015.

This action is required by §§ 679.20, 679.21, and 679.25 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.