Federal Register Vol. 80, No.169,

The Agency administers the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), which was established by the Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986 (FERSA), Public Law 99-335, 100 Stat. 514. The TSP provisions of FERSA are codified, as amended, largely at 5 U.S.C. 8351 and 8401-79. The TSP is a tax-deferred retirement savings plan for Federal civilian employees and members of the uniformed services. The TSP is similar to cash or deferred arrangements established for private-sector employees under section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 401(k)).

On July 13, 2015, the Agency published a proposed rule with request for comments in the Federal Register (80 FR 39975, July 13, 2015). The Agency received no comments and, therefore, is publishing the proposed rule as final without change.

I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulation will affect Federal civilian employees and spouse beneficiaries who participate in the Thrift Savings Plan, which is a Federal defined contribution retirement savings plan created under the Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986 (FERSA), Public Law 99-335, 100 Stat. 514, and which is administered by the Agency.

I certify that these regulations do not require additional reporting under the criteria of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 602, 632, 653, 1501-1571, the effects of this regulation on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector have been assessed. This regulation will not compel the expenditure in any one year of $100 million or more by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. Therefore, a statement under section 1532 is not required.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 810(a)(1)(A), the Agency submitted a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States before publication of this rule in the Federal Register. The rule is not a major rule as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Agency amends 5 CFR chapter VI as follows:

Executive Order 12866

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. RUS has determined that this rule meets the applicable standards provided in section 3 of that Executive Order. In addition, all State and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule will be preempted. No retroactive effect will be given to the rule and, in accordance with section 212(e) of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6912(e)), administrative appeal procedures must be exhausted before an action against the Department or its agencies may be initiated.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a) (2), this final rule related to grants is exempt from the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.), including the requirement to provide prior notice and an opportunity for public comment. Because this rule is not subject to a requirement to provide prior notice and an opportunity for public comment pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) are inapplicable.

The information collection and recordkeeping requirements contained in this final rule are pending approval by OMB pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) under control number 0572-AC28 . The paperwork contained in this rule will not be effective until approved by OMB.

RUS is committed to the E-Government Act, which requires Government agencies in general to provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible.

The program described by this final rule is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs under number 10.760. This catalog is available electronically through the free CFDA Web site on the Internet at http://www.cfda.gov. The print edition may be purchased by calling the Superintendent of Documents at 202-512-1800 or toll free at 866-512-1800, or ordering it online at http://bookstore.thefederalregister.org.

All projects funded under this part are subject to Executive Order 12372 (3 CFR, 1983 Comp., p. 197), which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. These requirements are set forth in U.S. Department of Agriculture regulations 2 CFR part 415, subpart C, and RD Instruction 1940 J. In the case of grants made to DEC and ANTHC, DEC and ANTHC will certify that the requirements listed in paragraphs a-e are included in their agreements with the rural or native villages.

Federally Recognized Tribes, however, are exempt from this process as set forth in the U.S. Department of Agriculture regulations 7 CFR 1940.453(c) and RD Instruction 1940.J which addresses applications from Indian tribes. Specifically, applications from federally recognized Indian tribes are not subject to the requirements of this subpart. However, Indian tribes may voluntarily participate in the review system explained in this Subpart and are encouraged to do so. When a federally recognized Tribal Government has established a mechanism for coordinating the activities of Tribal departments, divisions, enterprises or entities, Rural Development will, on request of such Tribal Government transmitted through OMB, require that applications for assistance be subject to review by the Tribal coordinating mechanism as though it were a part of the consultation process under this Subpart.

This final rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provision of Title II of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, this final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995.

RUS has determined that this final rule will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment as defined by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Therefore, this action does not require an environmental impact statement or assessment.

The policies contained in this final rule do not have any substantial direct effect on states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor does this final rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments. Therefore, consultation with the states is not required.

Executive Order 13175 imposes requirements on RUS in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications or preempt tribal laws. RUS has determined that this final rule has a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribe(s) or on either the relationship or the distribution of powers and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Therefore, in anticipation of the publication of this final rule, RUS focused its quarterly Tribal Consultation webinar and teleconference process during the summer of 2013 on the Rural Alaska Village Grant program. A pre-consultation briefing was held on June 20, 2013 to provide a thorough briefing of the Rural Alaska Village Grant program and the regulatory changes under consideration. This was followed by a Tribal Consultation webinar and teleconference on July 17, 2013. Input received by RUS through the Tribal Consultation process was considered alongside comments to the proposed rule and utilized in drafting the final rule. If a Tribe has questions about the Tribal Consultation process please contact Rural Development's Native American Coordinator at (720) 544-2911 or [email protected].

The Rural Utilities Service, a Rural Development agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (RUS), works to improve the quality of life in rural America by providing investment capital, in the form of loans, loan guarantees, grants and technical assistance for the deployment of rural telecommunications, broadband, electric, water and environmental infrastructure. RUS loans, loan guarantee and grant programs act as a catalyst for economic and community development. By financing improvements to rural electric, water and waste, and telecommunications and broadband infrastructure, RUS plays a significant role in improving other measures of quality of life in rural America, including public health and safety, environmental protection, conservation, and cultural and historic preservation.

RUS published a proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register on December 20, 2013 at 78 FR 77009 seeking comments on modification to an existing regulation and the establishment of a separate regulation for the RAVG program. The Agency received one comment from an outside Federal agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Alaska District Hydraulics Section, along with two public submissions from the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) and the State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) regarding the proposed rule. The commenters' responses are summarized below with the Agency's responses as follows:

Issue 1: ANTHC and DEC stated that the definition of dire sanitation conditions is problematic and suggested modifying the existing definition because it does not allow identified deficiencies to be addressed until they have already undermined public health and until the deficiency is far more difficult and expensive to correct.

Response: RUS agrees in part with the commenters and will modify parts 1 and 2 of the definition of dire sanitation conditions as presented by ANTHC in their comment submission. RUS is also adjusting part 3 of the definition so that it will allow an appropriate Federal agency (such as the Center for Disease Control) or a regulatory Agency of the State of Alaska to determine if the drinking water and/or sewer system does not meet regulatory requirements. RUS, however, disagrees with the proposed addition of a 4th part of the definition that would allow “a professional engineer to determine if existing water and/or wastewater system components have exceeded their design life and replacements or upgrades are required to extend the service life to prevent loss of service or ability to meet regulatory or safety standards.” The language as proposed would allow for any professional engineer, regardless of background, association, etc., to make a determination of need based on their personal assessment of a systems useful life. This approach would allow for inconsistencies in determinations and a potential for inaccurate prioritization of need. Allowing a professional engineer to determine whether a system has exceeded its useful life and is in need of repairs or replacement is not comparable to determining whether a dire sanitary need exists. Further, the commenters do not specify whether the professional engineer would be a private or public engineer. In the case of a private professional engineer, the Agency is concerned that there would be an incentive to prioritize the largest, most costly, projects to maximize revenues, rather than an unbiased prioritization of need. Section 306D of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to “make grants to the State of Alaska for the benefit of rural or Native villages in Alaska to provide for the development and construction of water and wastewater systems to improve the health and sanitation conditions in those villages, and to prioritize the allocation of grants based on health and sanitation conditions.” Given the limited grant funds available and the existing conditions in many native Alaskan villages, the Agency has determined that distinguishing between general lifecycle replacement need and dire sanitary need is necessary to ensure that funds are used for their highest purpose. As stated above, the Agency, upon consideration of the comments, will modify section three of the proposed definition of dire sanitary need to include language allowing appropriate Federal and State Agencies to assess the level of need. In doing so, the Agency expects that such qualified and appropriate agencies will make determinations based on standard evaluative processes. This approach will allow for more consistent determinations and meet the requirements of the statute.

Issue 2: § 1784.8(e) Eligibility—ANTHC and DEC request to delete some eligibility information as it relates to dire sanitation conditions.

Response: RUS disagrees with deleting the information in § 1784.8(e) as it would be a disservice to the communities that face the highest health and safety issues related to inadequate sanitation services. The purpose of the language is to clearly identify the level of documentation needed by the Agency to make a proper determination of eligibility for funding. RUS has placed an emphasis on health and dire sanitation needs to ensure that federal funds are used appropriately. In cases where there is scientific evidence or reports with substantiated evidence of associated health issues, documentation may be accepted from an appropriate federal agency such as the Center for Disease Control. The Agency is also adding language to address the concern that other situations may exist beyond the definition of dire sanitary condition in this regulation that have a negative impact on the health or safety of an eligible community, Specifically, the Agency is adding paragraph (f) to Section 1784.8 to allow applicants to request a special review and eligibility determination in individual cases where a proposed project does not meet the definition of “Dire sanitation condition” in § 1784.2, and where the applicant is able to satisfactorily demonstrate that a water or sewer system is deficient and negatively impacts the health or safety of the community. The decision to review an eligibility determination request and any determinations made subject to this paragraph will not be subject to administrative appeal.

Through planning efforts, RUS will continue to work with ANTHC, DEC, and rural Alaskan communities to help plan sanitation projects. In the event that the project does not meet the dire sanitation condition definition, the planning documents created through a Predevelopment and Planning Grant, which is another grant program offered by RUS, can be utilized by the community to secure other funding through Rural Development's water and waste program or elsewhere. The dire sanitation eligibility criteria will apply to design and construction projects.

Issue 3: § 1784.10—Eligible Grant Purposes: There are three issues related to eligible grant purposes in which both ANTHC and DEC provided suggestions, which are as follows:

Issue 3a. ANTHC suggests the proposed language for Reasonable Costs and Contingencies in § 1784.10(b)(1) is misplaced and should be modified to include a specific reference to “materials (including construction allowance) and freight.”

Response: RUS agrees that the proposed language is misplaced and will relocate the language to § 1784.10 (a). However, RUS disagrees with the modification of reasonable costs. The Agency is concerned that if reasonable costs including construction allowances were allowed, scarce grant funds may be used for excess parts and fewer grant funds would be available for actual construction of infrastructure in communities in great need. RUS will work with applicants as needed with regard to occasional breakage and/or defects of materials.

Issue 3b. ANTHC suggests the proposed language for Training and Technical Assistance is not consistent with the Agriculture Appropriations Act and other documents.

Response: RUS agrees that technical assistance funds may be provided to other entities as designated in the annual appropriations. RUS proposes to amend the language in § 1784.10(b)(1)(iii) to align with the language in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014.

Issue 3c. ANTHC and DEC suggest the proposed rule limits installation of water and sanitation services to residential homes only and does not include public facilities except for those necessary for the successful operation and maintenance of the water and sanitation system. It is suggested that the rule be revised to allow funding for water and sewer connections for facilities that provide health and social services and public facilities such as schools, school housing, public safety offices, health care facilities, government offices, etc.

Response: RUS disagrees with the proposed recommendations to modify the language in § 1784.10(c)(1). While the authorizing statute 306D does not restrict RAVG funds to residential homes, it also makes no mention of offering these services to public facilities. RUS's interpretation of the statute's purpose is to provide infrastructure for water and wastewater systems and Alaskan village residents directly connected to those systems. The suggested facilities addressed by the commenters are, however, eligible under the Rural Development Community Facilities program whose eligibility includes public facilities. Refer to Community Facilities regulation § 1942.17(d).

Issue 4: Grantee Accounting Methods, Management Reporting and Audits—ANTHC finds the proposed language confusing.

Response: RUS agrees that language in this section is confusing and will modify the language for simplicity.

Issue 5: Exception Authority—ANTHC recommends this section be expanded to allow the RUS Administrator flexibility to consider using funds on a case-by-case basis for additional installations that will promote access to public health services and sustainability of the system; and also recommends that RUS consider a delegation of exception authority to the Rural Development Alaska State Director.

Response: The request to broaden exception authority appears, from the comments filed, to be a vehicle to address concerns with what one or more commenters see as a too restrictive definition of dire sanitary need. As stated earlier, the definition of dire sanitary need will be modified in the final regulation to address comments filed and should allow sufficient room for professional assessment and determination of dire sanitary need. This will negate a need for expanded exception authority. RUS's Exception Authority has traditionally been reserved for the Administrator because such exceptions are rare and have great potential to more broadly impact programs. The Agency is not convinced by the commenters that codification of a specific delegation to a State Director is necessary.

Issue 6: Compliance and Application Processing—There are three issues related to the compliance and application process noted by ANTHC. They are as follows:

Issue 6a: Revise § 1784.18, § 1784.20, and § 1784.21—ANTHC requests that § 1784.18, § 1784.20, and § 1784.21 be revised to remove requirements that tribal applicants execute standard and other forms dealing with nondiscrimination requirements. It is also requested that § 1784.21 be revised to eliminate the statement that all Rural Alaska Village grants are subject to USDA's civil rights regulations, particularly 7 CFR part 15 and 7 CFR part 1901, subpart E.

Response: The forms required for RAVG applicants seek information that is required by the Agency for processing and/or by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for grant programs. The forms are utilized in all Agency water and waste disposal programs and are routinely completed by tribal applicants. The commenter has provided no compelling reason for a special exception for RAVG applicants.

Issue 6b: Procurement by Applicants—ANTHC recommends modifying language in § 1784.36 (a) to avoid confusion and to accommodate their current policies and procedures regarding contracting and procurement. In addition, ANTHC is concerned that language in this section might be applied to prevent consideration of other factors that contribute to system sustainability and costs at another level.

Response: RUS agrees with the first recommendation made by ANTHC to revise the language of the proposed regulation with regard to procurement requirements § 1784.36(a). The second sentence, “Procurement procedures shall not restrict or eliminate open and free competition” will be removed. This requirement is already inherent in the statement that the State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and ANTHC will base procurement procedures on OMB Uniform Administrative Requirements which specifically address open and free competition. We do not, however, concur in the addition of a separate requirement to consider system sustainability in selection of materials. Consideration of “all materials normally suitable for the project based on sound engineering practices and project requirements” is not intended to be exclusive and should not prevent consideration of other non-regulatory factors, such as sustainability as appropriate.

Issue 6c. Information Collection and Record Keeping Requirements—ANTHC is concerned that estimated burden hours are too low and should be significantly higher. Specifically, they estimate “it takes 32 hands on hours to complete the documents taking into account the time it takes to work with rural communities, to complete and execute documents that require information or a signature from them.” They also state that many of the forms are redundant.

Response: RUS disagrees and believes that ANTHC is misinterpreting burden estimates prepared by USDA in a separate information and collection package required under the Paperwork Reduction Act for this. ANTHC states in its comments that USDA's estimate of 2.5 hours is far too modest of an estimate for completion of required forms. The burden package developed for this regulation includes estimates for completion of each form or information requirement necessary to make application under the RAVG program. The aggregate burden is well above 2.5 hours.

Issue 7: Floodplains/Subpart C, § 1784.21(m) (Other Requirements)—Three commenters, ANTHC, DEC, and Ricky “Lance” Overstreet on behalf of US Army Corps of Engineers Alaska District Hydraulics Section, are concerned that specific language in this section will lead to narrow interpretations that could prevent the construction of water facilities, even where there is no undue threat of flooding.

Response: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance policy and guidance allows the use of information obtained through consultation with the community, or flooding sources (that) have been studied by other Federal, State, or local agencies. Some of these studies do not meet the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) standards for a Flood Insurance Study, but often contain valuable flood hazard information, which may be incorporated into the NFIP maps as approximate studies. Those types of studies typically cover developed or developing areas. They often contain flood elevation profiles that can be used as “best available data” for floodplain management purposes (FEMA NFIP training module, Unit 3 NFIP Flood Studies and Maps). RUS therefore concurs with the comment and will revise the rule text accordingly.

Issue 8: Lead Agency Environmental Review—One commenter, ANTHC, suggests § 1784.22 be clarified with regard to obligations under the National Historic Preservation Act and its regulations.

Response: RUS agrees that § 1784.22 needs to be clarified and corrected as it applies to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the implementing regulation found in 36 CFR part 800. The Agency also acknowledges that there is not a “RAVG Section 106 process” as such, and reference to this will be deleted from the section text.

Therefore, for the reasons discussed in the preamble, RUS amends chapter XVII of Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

The FAA has determined that notice of, and opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions is impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the design approval and thus delivery of the affected airplanes. In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

On December 10, 2009, Bombardier Aerospace applied for a type certificate for their new Models BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 series airplanes (hereafter collectively referred to as “CSeries”). The CSeries airplanes are swept-wing monoplanes with an aluminum alloy fuselage, sized for 5-abreast seating. Passenger capacity is designated as 110 for the Model BD-500-1A10 and 125 for the Model BD-500-1A11. Maximum takeoff weight is 131,000 pounds for the Model BD-500-1A10 and 144,000 pounds for the Model BD-500-1A11. The CSeries airplanes will use rechargeable lithium batteries and battery systems for equipment and systems.

Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Bombardier Aerospace must show that the CSeries airplanes meet the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25 as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-129.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the CSeries airplanes because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the CSeries airplanes must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36, and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).

The CSeries will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature: Installed rechargeable lithium batteries and battery systems that have certain failure, operational, and maintenance characteristics that differ significantly from those of the nickel-cadmium and lead-acid rechargeable batteries currently approved for installation on large transport-category airplanes.

The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

The current regulations governing installation of batteries in large transport category airplanes were derived from Civil Air Regulations (CAR) part 4b.625(d) as part of the re-codification of CAR 4b that established 14 CFR part 25 in February 1965. The recodified battery requirements, § 25.1353(c)(1) through (c)(4), basically reworded the CAR requirements.

Increased use of nickel-cadmium batteries in small airplanes resulted in increased incidents of battery fires and failures that led to additional rulemaking affecting large, transport category airplanes as well as small airplanes. On September 1, 1977, and March 1, 1978, with Amendments 25-41 and 25-42 respectively, the FAA added paragraphs (c)(5) and (c)(6) to § 25.1353 governing nickel-cadmium battery installations on large, transport-category airplanes. On December 10, 2007, Amendment 25-123 moved the contents of paragraph (b) in § 25.1353 to the new subpart H, resulting in the relocation of the regulations governing the installation of batteries in § 25.1353 from paragraph (c) to paragraph (b).

The proposed use of rechargeable lithium batteries for equipment and systems prompted the FAA to review the adequacy of these existing regulations. Our review indicates that the existing regulations do not adequately address several failure, operational, and maintenance characteristics of lithium batteries that could affect the safety and reliability of the lithium battery installations.

At present, there is limited experience with the use of lithium batteries in applications involving commercial aviation. However, other users of this technology, ranging from wireless telephone manufacturers to the electric vehicle industry, have noted safety problems with rechargeable lithium batteries. These problems include overcharging, over-discharging, and flammability of cell components.

In general, lithium batteries are significantly more susceptible to internal failures that can result in self-sustaining increases in temperature and pressure (i.e., thermal runaway) than their nickel-cadmium or lead-acid counterparts. This condition is especially true for overcharging, which causes heating and destabilization of the components of the cell, leading to the formation (by plating) of highly unstable metallic lithium. The metallic lithium can ignite, resulting in a self-sustaining fire or explosion. Finally, the severity of thermal runaway due to overcharging increases with increasing battery capacity due to the higher amount of electrolyte in large batteries.

Discharge of some types of lithium battery cells beyond a certain voltage (typically 2.4 volts), can cause corrosion of the electrodes of the cell, resulting in loss of battery capacity that cannot be reversed by recharging. This loss of capacity may not be detected by the simple voltage measurements commonly available to flightcrews as a means of checking battery status—a problem shared with nickel-cadmium batteries.

Unlike nickel-cadmium and lead-acid batteries, some types of lithium batteries use liquid electrolytes that are flammable. The electrolyte can serve as a source of fuel for an external fire, if there is a breach of the battery container.

These problems experienced by users of lithium batteries raise concern about the use of these batteries in commercial aviation. The intent of these special conditions is to establish appropriate airworthiness standards for lithium battery installations in the CSeries airplanes and to ensure, as required by §§ 25.601 and 25. 1309, that these battery installations are not hazardous or unreliable.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Models BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 series airplanes. Should Bombardier Aerospace apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on two model series of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.

The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

Background

Section 335 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1335) authorizes the Commission to adopt reasonable procedures, rules, and regulations that it deems necessary to carry out its functions and duties. The Commission has determined to amend Part 207 of its rules covering investigations conducted under title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“title VII proceedings”). The amendment is to Commission Rule 207.11 (19 CFR 207.11), which governs the information required in antidumping and countervailing duty petitions filed with the Commission (as well as the Department of Commerce). The change to the rule is aimed at decreasing the burden on petitioning parties to provide detailed information concerning lost sales and lost revenue allegations in petitions filed with the Commission.

The Commission recently amended its Rules of Practice and Procedure, including Commission Rule 207.11. Prior to promulgating final rules, it published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) in the Federal Register. 78 FR 36446-449 (June 18, 2013). Among the provisions it proposed to amend was the provision in 19 CFR 207.11(b)(2)(v) concerning submission of lost sales and lost revenue allegations. Three law firms which regularly appear before the Commission in Title VII proceedings filed comments on the NOPR. On June 25, 2014, the Commission published revisions to its rules, including 19 CFR 207.11(b)(2)(v), that largely adopted the changes proposed in the NOPR. 79 FR 35920 (June 25, 2014).

In this notice, the Commission is adopting new rules regarding collection of information on lost sales and lost revenue allegations. The Commission considers this rule to be procedural and therefore excepted from notice-and-comment requirements under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). The Commission typically engages in a notice-and-comment rulemaking process, even when it is not required, so it can receive comments and suggestions from affected parties concerning contemplated changes to its Rules of Practice and Procedure. The Commission decided that such processes were not warranted in this particular circumstance and, for reasons stated more fully below, finds under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) that good cause exists to waive prior notice and opportunity for public comment. In particular, the Commission conducted a rulemaking concerning the lost sales/lost revenue provision at 19 CFR 207.11(b)(2)(v) last year, received limited comments on the provision, and subsequently conducted an external survey process which yielded considerable commentary about procedures for collecting and investigating lost sales and lost revenue allegations. Consequently, the Commission has recently received and carefully considered extensive comments concerning the matters addressed in this notice.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) is inapplicable to this rulemaking because it is not one for which a notice of final rulemaking is required under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or any other statute. These regulations are “agency rules of procedure and practice,” and thus are exempt from the notice requirement imposed by 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Moreover, the rules are certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

The rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

The rule does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

The rule change does not constitute a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993).

The rule change does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, October 7, 1999).

The amendment is not to a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et. seq.). Moreover, it is exempt from the reporting requirements of the Act because it concerns a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice that does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties.

On June 25, 2014, the Commission amended 19 CFR 207.11(b)(2)(v) in two respects. First, the amendment required that petitioners provide the email address, street address, city, state, and 5-digit zip code for each purchaser/contact with respect to each lost sales or lost revenue allegation. Second, petitioners were required to file any lost sales or revenue allegation(s) identified in the petition via a separate electronic data entry process in a manner to be specified in the Commission's Handbook on Filing Procedures. The only comment on these changes asserted that the Commission's approach to investigating lost sales and lost revenue allegations was overly rigid and that the amendment would only further increase the number of lost sales or lost revenue allegations that go uninvestigated. When it adopted the rule changes, the Commission indicated that its staff was still in the process of examining possible methods for electronic entry of data pertaining to lost sales and lost revenue allegations. Some basic requirements were to be specified in the Commission's Handbook of Filing Procedures and the Commission indicated that these requirements may be further modified.

After the amendments of June 2014, the Commission staff conducted an external survey regarding the Commission's lost sales and lost revenue allegation process. It received 37 responses to the survey. Most survey respondents represented U.S. producers and they noted that they frequently submit lost sales and lost revenue allegations. Many survey respondents stated that it is difficult to provide the level of detail requested by the Commission regarding the allegations, particularly specific dates, quantities, and competing prices. They asserted that because of the level of detail and required research, compiling the information can be time consuming and costly for petitioners. Some survey respondents noted that collection of allegation information requires extensive document collection and review. Survey respondents also observed that the specificity of the details in the allegation makes it possible for purchasers to deny allegations based on minor differences in details.

After considering these comments, the Commission has determined to amend Commission Rule 207.11(b)(2)(v) to no longer require transaction-specific lost sales and lost revenue allegation information in the petition. Parties will no longer be required by the Rule to include in the petition “[a] listing of all sales or revenues lost by each petitioning firm by reason of the subject merchandise during the three years preceding filing of the petition.” Rather, the Commission's revised rule will state that the petition must include “[a] listing of the main purchasers from which each petitioning firm experienced lost sales or lost revenue by reason of the subject merchandise during a period covering the three most recently completed calendar years and that portion of the current calendar year for which information is reasonably available.” Petitioners will be required to provide the listing via a separate electronic data entry process in a manner to be specified in the Commission's Handbook on Filing Procedures. The Commission is also removing the requirement that petitioners supply physical addresses for purchasers. Instead, petitioners will be required to provide information identified in the template spreadsheet specified in the Commission's Handbook on Filing Procedures. The language of the rule also now clearly indicates that lost sales and revenue allegations should concern a period more closely reflecting the period of investigation the Commission typically uses rather than only the three years preceding the filing of the petition.

These changes in requirements for the petition should ease the burden on petitioners while not compromising the ability of Commission staff to investigate lost sales and revenue that occur during the period of investigation.

Accordingly, the ITC amends 19 CFR part 207 as follows:

On August 20, 2015, at 80 FR 50564, HUD published a final rule to streamline the portability process. Portability is a feature of the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program that allows an eligible family with a housing choice voucher to use that voucher to lease a unit anywhere in the United States where there is a public housing agency (PHA) operating an HCV program. The purpose of the changes made to the portability regulations made by HUD's final rule published on August 10, 2015, is to enable PHAs to better serve families and expand housing opportunities by improving portability processes.

HUD received comments about the requirement and content of HCV family briefings. The majority of commenters, commenting on the briefings, expressed opposition to expanding the briefing requirements, stating that the existing briefing requirements are already complex and any expansion would increase administrative burden. In response to these comments, HUD stated that it determined that providing information about the factors the family should consider when determining where to lease a unit with voucher assistance will only be required as part of the briefing should HUD make such information available to PHAs for distribution. HUD stated that if required, PHAs are to provide such information as part of the oral briefing and the information packet provided to families selected to participate in the program, and that HUD would revised the regulation at § 982.301 accordingly. HUD further stated that an explanation of the benefits of living in low-poverty census tracts should be provided to all families, not just those families living in high-poverty census tracts. This explanation of benefits should also be included in the information packet provided to families selected to participate in the HCV program. (See 80 FR 50569, first column.) While HUD stated that it would amend § 982.301 accordingly, the corresponding amendments were inadvertently omitted from the regulatory text. Therefore, this document revises § 982.301 to include the missing regulatory text.

In the issue of August 20, 2015, at 80 FR 50564, FR Rule Doc. No. 2015-20551 is corrected as follows:

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the Coast Guard did not receive notice of this event until late July and there is an immediate need to remove hazards presented by unexploded ordinance. Any delay in the effective date of this rule would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest because immediate action is needed to minimize potential danger to the public from this operation.

We are issuing this final rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register for the same reasons described above.

The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish regulated navigation areas and other limited access areas: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 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.

The purpose of the rule is to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the removal and disposition of unexploded ordnance.

From August 10, 2015 to September 4, 2015, the Army Corp of Engineers will be removing and disposing unexploded ordnance off the coast of Vero Beach, Florida.

A safety zone will encompass certain waters of the Atlantic Ocean in Vero Beach, Florida. The safety zone will be effective beginning 12:01 a.m. on August 10, 2015 through 11:59 p.m. on September 4, 2015 unless cancelled sooner by the Captain of the Port. The safety zone will be enforced while operations associated with the removal and disposition of the unexploded ordnance are ongoing. Weather conditions may inhibit ordinance removal operations; as a result, exact enforcement times cannot be identified at this time. The USCG and other Law Enforcement agencies will have vessels on-scene to enforce this rule. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the Atlantic Ocean from Windward Way to Seaway Court extending east for 2.3 nautical miles, in Vero Beach, Florida. All persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within this regulated area.

Persons and vessels may request authorization to enter the safety zone by contacting the Captain of the Port Miami by telephone at 305-535-4472, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone is granted by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the safety zone by Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and E.O.s, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) This safety zone will be enforced during operations related to the removal and disposition of the unexploded ordnance; (2) although persons and vessels will not be able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without authorization from the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding areas during the enforcement period; (3) persons and vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone during the enforcement period if authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative; (4) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the safety zone to the local maritime community by Broadcast Notice to Mariners and on-scene representatives.

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

This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone during the respective enforcement period. For the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review Section above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

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

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

A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (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 creation of a safety zone. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction.

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

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

The Washington State Department of Transportation, on behalf of the University of Washington Police Department, has requested that the Montlake Bridge bascule span remain in the closed-to-navigation position, and need not open to vessel traffic to facilitate timely movement of pre-game and post game football traffic at Husky Stadium at the University of Washington, Seattle, WA. The Montlake Bridge crosses the Lake Washington Ship Canal at mile 5.2; and while in the closed-to-navigation position provides 30 feet of vertical clearance throughout the navigation channel and 46 feet of vertical clearance throughout the center 60-feet of the bridge. These vertical clearance measurements are made in reference to the Mean Water Level of Lake Washington. The normal operating schedule for Montlake Bridge operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.1051(e), which requires the bridge to open on signal, except that the bridge need not open for vessels less than 1,000 gross tons between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday.

The deviation period will cover the following dates. From 8:30 a.m. to 11 a.m., and from 2:30 p.m. to 5 p.m. on September 12, 2015; from 11:30 a.m. to 2 p.m. and from 5:30 p.m. to 8 p.m. on September 19, 2015. The times for the closures on September 26, 2015, October 17, 2015, October 31, 2015, November 7, 2015, and November 27, 2015 will be determined, and announced in the Coast Guard's Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners as they become available. Due to NCAA television scheduling, the times for the games are not currently available. The bridge shall operate in accordance to 33 CFR 117.1051(e) at all other times. Waterway usage on the Lake Washington Ship Canal ranges from commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft.

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

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

Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking A. Regulatory History and Information

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because of the sensitive security issues related to the POTUS. Providing a public notice and comment period is contrary to national security concerns and the public interest. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Any delay encountered in this temporary rule's effective date would be contrary to the public interest given the immediate need to ensure the safety and security of the POTUS and first family during their visit to Seward, Alaska from August 31, 2015 through September 02, 2015.

The legal basis for this rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

The POTUS and first family are scheduled to visit Seward, Alaska, from August 31, 2015 through September 02, 2015. It is expected that they will reside and/or participate in activities on properties that are adjacent to navigable waters within the Captain of the Port, Western Alaska zone. The U.S. Secret Service has requested that the Coast Guard provide 1000-yard moving security zone around the POTUS and the first family. This security zone is intended to provide security for the POTUS and first family by preventing vessels and persons from approaching the location of the POTUS and first family without prior authorization from the U.S. Secret Service.

This temporary rule establishes a temporary moving security zone within 1000 yards of a designated vessel on the navigable waters of the U.S. in Resurrection Bay, Seward, Alaska from August 31, 2015 through September 02, 2015, during the visit of the POTUS and first family to Alaska. This rule is effective from 8 a.m. on Monday, August 31, 2015 through 5 p.m. on Wednesday, September 2, 2015. This action is intended to prohibit unauthorized vessels or persons from entering or remaining in navigable waters located within 1000 yards of the POTUS and/or first family while they are in or near the navigable waters of the U.S. during their visit to Seward, Alaska. The Captain of the Port, Western Alaska, anticipates negligible negative impact on vessel traffic from this temporary security zone, as they will be in effect for no more than three days, and will only be enforced while the POTUS and/or first family are in the vicinity of the navigable waters of the U.S. at Seward, Alaska. It has been determined that the necessary security enhancements provided by this rule greatly outweigh any potential negative impacts.

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

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13536. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. The rule is not a significant regulatory action because the security zone will be in place for a limited period, approximately three days and vessel traffic will be able to transit around the security zone. Maritime traffic may also request permission to transit through the zone from the Captain of the Port, Western Alaska or a designated representative.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider potential impact on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to transit navigable waters in the vicinity of Seward, Alaska from 8:00 a.m. on Monday, August 31, 2015 through 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 2, 2015. The security zone will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The security zone is temporary and will be enforced only when the POTUS and/or first family are in the vicinity of the navigable waters of the U.S. at Seward, Alaska. Thus, the temporary nature and limited effective period and anticipated enforcement periods of the zone, coupled with the ability of the maritime public to maneuver around the zone, will allow small entities to plan and conduct their business accordingly.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If you think your small business or organization would be affected by this rule and you have any questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call Lieutenant Eugene Chung at (907) 428-4189. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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

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

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in 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 rule is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect 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 which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of a temporary moving security zone within 1000 yards of a designated vessel on the navigable waters of the U.S. in Resurrection Bay, Seward, Alaska. This rule is categorically excluded, from further review under paragraph (34)(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

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

On June 24, 2014 the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) with a request for comments entitled, “Safety Zone, Schuylkill River; Philadelphia, PA” in the Federal Register (79 FR 35685). No comments were received on the NPRM. No public meeting was requested and none was held.

The legal basis for this rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of waterway users from hazards associated with a 30 foot reduction of horizontal clearance in the channel near Point Breeze when a barge with a beam (width) up to 80 feet is moored at the Deloach dock of Philadelphia Energy Solutions in the Schuylkill River. The remaining horizontal width of the channel in vicinity of Point Breeze is 270 feet.

The Coast Guard did not receive any comments to the proposed rule. Changes were made to the size of the safety zone described in the notice to proposed rule making. The decision was made to reduce the size of the zone to minimize the effect on waterway users in the area.

The following area is a safety zone: All waters of the Schuylkill River in Philadelphia, PA, inside a boundary described as originating from 39°54′50″ N., 075°12′12″ W.; then West to 39°54′50″ N., 075°12′15″ W.; then Northeast to 39°55′10″ N., 075°12′05″ W.; the East to 39°55′10″ N., 075°12′04″ W.; then back to 39°54′50″ N., 075°12′12″ W.

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

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This rule is not a significant regulatory action because it merely reduces the horizontal width of the channel; vessel traffic can still proceed up and down the Schuylkill River.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received 0 comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. The navigable channel is 300 feet wide, providing a remaining 270 feet of horizontal channel clearance for the passage of vessel traffic in the Schuylkill River. Additionally, the only commercial vessel traffic utilizing the waterway upriver of the Passyunk Avenue Bridge is an occasional barge. All anticipated vessel traffic will be able to pass safely around an 80 foot wide barge moored at the Deloach dock at Philadelphia Energy Solutions near Point Breeze. Before the safety zone goes into effect, maritime advisories will be made widely available to users of the Schuylkill River navigable channel.

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

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above. 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 did not receive any comments relating to 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 would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This rule does 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 would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would 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 rule 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 made a preliminary determination 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 implementation of a safety zone when a barge having beam (width) of up to 80 feet is moored at the Deloach dock at Philadelphia Energy Solutions near Point Breeze on the Schuylkill River. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary 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 part 165 as follows:

I. Background for Final Action

On November 16, 1991, EPA designated and classified the following counties in Georgia, either in their entirety or portions thereof, as a serious ozone nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS (hereinafter referred to as the “Atlanta 1-Hour Ozone Area”): Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, Paulding, and Rockdale. Among the requirements applicable to the nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS was the requirement to meet certain volatility standards (known as Reid Vapor Pressure or RVP) for gasoline sold commercially. See 55 FR 23658 (June 11, 1990). Subsequently, in order to comply with the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, Georgia opted to implement Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(bbb), Gasoline Marketing (hereinafter referred to as the “Georgia Fuel Rule”), which requires the sale of low sulfur, 7.0 RVP gasoline in the 45-county Georgia Fuel Area during the high ozone season.1 EPA incorporated the Georgia Fuel Rule into the Georgia SIP on July 19, 2004. See 69 FR 33862 (June 17, 2004).

On February 5, 2015, GA EPD submitted a SIP revision to modify the SIP by removing Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(aaa), Consumer and Commercial Products, 2 and Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(bbb), Gasoline Marketing, and revising Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(mmm), NOx Emissions from Stationary Gas Turbines and Stationary Engines used to Generate Electricity. 3 The SIP revision also includes measures to offset the emissions increases expected from the changes to these rules and a technical demonstration that these changes will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or standard) or with any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Additionally, the State submitted a SIP revision on September 26, 2006, that contains structural changes to Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(mmm).

Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(mmm) reduces emissions from stationary, peak performing engines that tend to operate during high electricity demand days in the 45-county Georgia Fuel Area. The State's February 5, 2015, SIP revision modifies the rule to exempt stationary engines at data centers from the rule's NOX emission limits provided that the engines operate for less than 500 hours per year and only for routine testing and maintenance, when electric power from the local utility is not available, or during internal system failures. The rule change also limits routine testing and maintenance of these engines during the high ozone season to the hours of 10 p.m. to 4 a.m. to reduce the possibility of ozone formation due to these emissions. The September 26, 2006, SIP revision makes a structural change to the SIP-approved version of the regulation, pulling the emergency engine exemption into a new paragraph (Paragraph 7) and limits the exemption to the emission limits in Paragraph 1 of the rule.

The February 5, 2015, SIP revision includes two offset measures—school bus replacements and rail locomotive conversions—to obtain the necessary emissions reductions to offset the rule changes identified in that submittal. The State's school bus replacement program permanently replaced 60 older school buses in DeKalb, Fayette, Henry, and Madison Counties with the newer and cleaner 2015 model year buses by October 2014. The locomotive conversion program consists of two components: (1) The conversion of 28 locomotives from Norfolk Southern Railway Company and CSX Transportation to EPA Tier 3 switch duty, Tier 3 Line-Haul, and Tier 2 Switch emissions standards, and (2) the installation of an electric layover system at the Norfolk Southern Atlanta Terminal. The State demonstrated that the offset measures result in equivalent or greater emissions reductions that are permanent, enforceable, quantifiable, surplus, and contemporaneous.

In addition, Georgia's SIP revision includes a contingency offset measure in the event that the locomotive conversion program cannot be fully completed. The contingency measure would obtain NOX offsets from the permanent retirement of Unit 3 at Georgia Power's Eugene A. Yates Steam-Electric Generating Plant. Upon a determination that sufficient offsets will not be achieved within one year from the date of EPA's final action on Georgia's February 5, 2015, SIP submission, GA EPD will revise Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(12)(f), Clean Air Interstate Rule NOX Annual Trading Program, for the purposes of retiring or reducing the appropriate New Source Set Asides and submit that rule revision, along with the Title V permit condition that requires the shutdown of Unit 3, as a SIP revision. GA EPD will use the necessary substitute emissions reductions to replace any emissions shortfall in the event the locomotive conversions are not completed. EPA has determined that the State has successfully demonstrated that 660 tons of NOX offset is available through implementation of the contingency measure in the event the locomotive conversion program is not completed and that the measures will be permanent, enforceable, quantifiable, contemporaneous, surplus, and equivalent.

In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) published on June 26, 2015, EPA proposed to approve the February 5, 2015, SIP revision and the portion of the September 26, 2006, submission that contains structural changes to Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(mmm). See 80 FR 36750. The details of Georgia's submittals and the rationale for EPA's action is explained in the NPR.

EPA received one comment on the NPR. This comment, submitted by the Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America and provided in the docket for today's final action, supports approval of the February 5, 2015, SIP revision but expresses concern about the timing of the action. A summary of the comment and EPA's response to the comment are provided below.

The Commenter supports EPA's proposal to approve the State's February 5, 2015, SIP revision but notes that it is “very disturbed by rumors that EPA will approve and implement this change [during the week of July 27, 2015], which will be right in the middle of the summer fuel season.” The Commenter “requests that EPA approve and implement the Georgia SIP in a manner that will not damage the fuel marketing industry and ultimately penalize those who have complied with the Agency's environmental mandate.”

EPA does not view this comment as adverse, and the basis for the Commenter's concerns regarding the finalization of the rule during the week of July 27, 2015 is unclear. EPA has proposed and finalized this action under its standard rulemaking process, and it will be effective on October 1, 2015.

In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporate by reference of Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(mmm), NO X Emissions from Stationary Gas Turbines and Stationary Engines used to Generate Electricity. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

EPA is taking final action to approve Georgia's February 5, 2015, SIP revision, including the section 110(l) demonstration that modifying the SIP to remove Georgia Rules 391-3-1-.02(2)(aaa) and 391-3-1-.02(2)(bbb) and revising Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(mmm) will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS or with any other applicable requirement of the CAA. EPA is also taking final action to approve the portion of the State's September 26, 2006, SIP revision that contains structural changes to Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(mmm).

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

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

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

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

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

• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, October 7, 1999);

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

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

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

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

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

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

The background for this action is discussed in detail in our April 28, 2015 Proposal (80 FR 23487). In that notice, we proposed to disapprove the TCEQ's 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration for the DFW Serious nonattainment area because the area failed to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS by the June 15, 2013 attainment date.1 Our analysis and findings are discussed in the proposed rulemaking. We also proposed to determine that the DFW ozone nonattainment area is currently in attainment of the 1997 ozone standard based on the most recent 3 years of quality-assured air quality data. Certified ambient air monitoring data show that the area has monitored attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS for the 2012-2014 monitoring period and continues to monitor attainment of the NAAQS based on preliminary 2015 data.

Our Proposal and the technical support document (TSD) that accompanied the proposed rule provide our rationale for this rulemaking. Please see the docket for these and other documents regarding our Proposal. The public comment period for our Proposal closed on May 28, 2015.

We received one comment letter dated May 28, 2015, from the TCEQ (the Commenter) regarding our Proposal. A summary of the comments and our responses follow.

Comment: The Commenter agrees with our Proposal to determine that the DFW ozone nonattainment area is currently in attainment of the 1997 ozone standard based on the most recent 3 years of quality-assured air quality data.

Response: We concur with the Commenter.

Comment: The Commenter does not support our Proposal to disapprove the DFW Serious area attainment demonstration under the 1997 ozone standard, given that the EPA's final rule to implement SIP requirements under the 2008 ozone standard (the SIP requirements rule or SRR),2 among other things, revoked the 1997 ozone standard and relieved the EPA of its obligation to issue a finding of failure to attain by the attainment date or reclassification (i.e., “bump up”) for such standard. The Commenter also states that the disapproval is unnecessary and may result in future obligations for the revoked standard and expenditure of limited state and federal resources for no true air quality benefit.

Response: The Commenter is correct that, as of April 6, 2015, the 1997 ozone standard is revoked, the EPA is no longer obligated to determine pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(2) or section 179(c) whether an area attained the 1997 ozone NAAQS by that area's attainment date for that NAAQS, and the EPA is also no longer obligated to reclassify an area to a higher classification for the 1997 ozone NAAQS based upon a determination that the area failed to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS by the area's attainment date for that NAAQS.3 However, this rulemaking addresses the EPA's obligation to act on the attainment demonstration SIP submittal. Pursuant to section 110(k)(2) of the CAA, we have a mandatory duty to act on each SIP submittal before us and therefore, it is necessary for us to take action on the DFW submittal.4 Regardless of our revocation of the 1997 ozone standard, because we had yet to act on the attainment demonstration submittal and the DFW area did not attain the 1997 ozone standard by its June 15, 2013 attainment date, EPA is required to disapprove the State's attainment demonstration.

With regard to the Commenter's remark about future obligations that may be brought on by this final disapproval, on February 27, 2015, the TCEQ requested that we make a Clean Data Determination (CDD) for the DFW area with regard to the 1997 ozone standard and we are finalizing the CDD proposed on April 28, 2015 in this rulemaking.5 Finalizing the CDD suspends the requirements for the TCEQ to submit an attainment demonstration and other SIPs related to attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the DFW area for so long as the area is attaining the standard (40 CFR 51.1118), and the 18-month sanctions clock associated with EPA's disapproval as well as the EPA's obligation to promulgate an attainment demonstration FIP within two years of disapproval are also tolled for so long as this CDD remains in place. Thus, as long as the area is able to maintain air quality meeting the 1997 ozone standard, no obligations will accrue from this disapproval. In addition, the State is currently working to develop the DFW attainment demonstration for the more stringent 2008 ozone standard, and in doing so, the TCEQ necessarily must also demonstrate attainment of the 1997 ozone standard. The State may also submit a redesignation substitute request and upon final approval by the EPA, the clocks to impose sanctions and a FIP suspended by this CDD action would lift permanently.6 However, in the event that the DFW area falls out of attainment of the 1997 ozone standard prior to obtaining EPA approval of a redesignation substitute, even though the EPA has revoked that standard, the CAA requires EPA to continue to ensure that the State's plan meets the requirements of that standard for purposes of anti-backsliding, including the obligations associated with a disapproved attainment demonstration. CAA 110(l); see also, South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882, 900 (D.C. Cir. 2006); 78 FR 34178, 34211-34225; 80 FR 12264, 12300. Further, the EPA does not agree that efforts to address the 1997 standard would expend resources for no air quality benefit; should air quality in the DFW area worsen to levels above the 1997 ozone standard prior to approval of a redesignation substitute, the subsequent obligations and actions required by the statute to reduce ozone levels in the DFW area would be beneficial to achieving both the 1997 and 2008 ozone standards.

A disapproval of an attainment plan as being promulgated here would normally start a FIP and sanctions clock. However, in accordance with our Clean Data Policy as codified in 40 CFR 51.1118, a determination of attainment suspends the requirements for the TCEQ to submit an attainment demonstration and other SIPs related to attaining the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the DFW area for so long as the area continues to attain the standard. In addition, the sanctions clock and the EPA's obligation to promulgate an attainment demonstration FIP are tolled for so long as this CDD remains in place. However, should the area violate the 1997 ozone standard after the CDD is finalized, the EPA would rescind the CDD and the sanctions and FIP clocks would resume.

Because the revocation of the 1997 ozone standard in the SRR also revoked EPA's obligation to determine whether an area attained the 1997 ozone NAAQS by that area's attainment date and to reclassify an area to a higher classification for the 1997 ozone NAAQS based upon a determination that the area failed to attain that NAAQS by the area's attainment date,7 we do not intend to finalize our proposed finding of failure to attain and reclassification at 80 FR 8274.

The EPA is disapproving certain elements of the attainment demonstration SIP submitted by the TCEQ for the DFW Serious ozone nonattainment area under the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Specifically, we are disapproving the attainment demonstration, the demonstration for reasonably available control measures, and the attainment demonstration motor vehicle emission budgets for 2012. The EPA is disapproving these SIP revisions because the area failed to attain the standard by its June 15, 2013 attainment date, and thus we have determined that the plan was insufficient to demonstrate attainment by the attainment date.

We also find that the DFW ozone nonattainment area has attained the 1997 ozone standard and continues to attain the standard. Thus, the requirements for submitting the attainment demonstration and other SIPs related to attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS are suspended for so long as the area is attaining the standard, and the sanctions and obligations accruing from EPA's disapproval of the attainment demonstration are also suspended during that period.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 2, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposed of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

The NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such communities will be published in the Federal Register.

In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.

Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.

National Environmental Policy Act. This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.

Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless remedial action takes place.

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

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

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

Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

On July 2, 2015, the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC or Commission) published a direct final rule (80 FR 37997) amending its regulations governing access to Commission information and records and its regulations implementing the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In response to the rule, the Commission received two comments recommending that the Commission extend the administrative appeal deadline. Both commenters, America Rising Advanced Research, a non-profit organization, and the National Archives and Records Administration, Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), suggested that extending the administrative appeal deadline will align the Commission with general agency practices. The Commission agrees, and therefore, is withdrawing its Direct Final Rule published on July 2, 2015 (80 FR 37997), and will issue a new Direct Final Rule to extend the administrative appeal deadline from 10 working days to 30 calendar days.

The Federal Maritime Commission amends its regulations governing access to Commission information and records and its regulations implementing the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, found in part 503 of title 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The provisions in part 503 are designed to facilitate public availability of information; thereby furthering the spirit of FOIA in ensuring an informed citizenry.

On July 2, 2015, the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC or Commission) published a Direct Final Rule (80 FR 37997) amending its regulations governing access to Commission information and records and its regulations implementing the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In response to the rule, the Commission received two comments recommending that the Commission extend the administrative appeal deadline. Both commenters, America Rising Advanced Research, a non-profit organization, and the National Archives and Records Administration, Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), suggested that extending the administrative appeal deadline will align the Commission with general agency practices.* The Commission agrees, and therefore, is withdrawing its Direct Final Rule published on July 2, 2015 (80 FR 37997), and issuing this new Direct Final Rule to extend the administrative appeal deadline from 10 working days to 30 calendar days.

In addition, the Commission is incorporating the revisions issued in the July 2, 2015 Direct Final Rule (80 FR 37997) into this Direct Final Rule. The revisions update and consolidate the provisions identifying records available without the need for a FOIA request, including records available on the Commission's public Web site; revise response time procedures for processing FOIA requests; affirmatively indicate that the Commission uses a multitrack system for processing FOIA requests; modify the criteria for a FOIA request to qualify for expedited processing; and extend the administrative appeal deadline.

The Commission last revised part 503 in 1998 to reflect requirements of the Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1996 (Pub. L. 04-231). On December 31, 2007, the OPEN Government Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-175) amended procedural aspects of FOIA and established new agency requirements for processing FOIA requests. On October 28, 2009, the OPEN FOIA Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 110-175) further amended FOIA.

The amendments to part 503 update the Commission's regulations to reflect its practices and provisions of the OPEN Government Act of 2007 and the OPEN FOIA Act of 2009.

The Commission is making the following revisions to the subparts of part 503: revise Subpart A—General, Statement of Policy to repurpose this subpart to state the purpose and scope of the rules contained in part 503; update Subpart B—Publication in the Federal Register to recognize that in addition to publishing records in the Federal Register, the Commission also posts records listed in this Subpart on its Web site (www.fmc.gov); revise Subpart C—Records, Information and Materials Generally Available to the Public Without Resort to Freedom of Information Act Procedures to describe records available to the public without the need for a FOIA request, including records available on the Commission's public Web site; amend Subpart D—Requests for Records under the Freedom of Information Act to include procedures for tolling response times, processing FOIA requests under the multitracking system, and expedited processing of FOIA requests; and revise Subpart H—Public Observation of Federal Maritime Commission Meetings and Public Access to Information Pertaining to Commission Meetings to amend a subpart reference.

The Commission revises the heading and language in § 503.1 to describe the scope and purpose of the provisions contained in part 503. Specifically, the Commission changes the section heading from “Statement of Policy” to “Scope and Purpose.” The Commission also amends this section to include a list of the subparts contained in part 503.

To promote greater access to information and records, the Commission amends and updates § 503.11 to inform the public that the Commission posts records listed in this subpart on its Web site (www.fmc.gov), in addition to publishing these records in the Federal Register.

Sections 503.21 to 503.24 describe records available to the public without the need for a FOIA request. The Commission last revised these sections in 1998 and further revises these sections to reflect the availability of information on the Commission's Web site, eliminate outdated information, and remove duplicative language.

Section 503.31 provides information on the process for requesting records. The Commission is adding a new paragraph encouraging requesters to review the records on the Commission's public Web site prior to initiating a FOIA request. In addition, the Commission amends this section to include requirements for submitting FOIA requests electronically.

In accordance with general Federal agency practices, the Commission amends § 503.32(a)(3)(i)(B) to extend the administrative appeal deadline from 10 working days to 30 calendar days.

FOIA, as amended, allows an agency to make one reasonable request for information from the FOIA requester and stop, or toll, the 20-day clock for responding to a FOIA requester while the agency is waiting for the requested information from the FOIA requester. 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I). Agencies may also toll the 20-day response clock as many times as necessary in order to clarify any issues with fee assessment. 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II).

Section 503.32 sets forth procedures for responding to requests made under FOIA. This section does not currently include a provision for tolling the statutory 20-day FOIA response period should the Commission need to contact the FOIA requestor to clarify or narrow the scope of the FOIA request. The Commission is adding language that would allow for tolling of response times to implement the Commission's authority to stop the 20-day clock should the Commission need information from the requestor or to clarify issues with fee assessment.

The Commission is adding two new paragraphs, (b)(4) and (5) to § 503.32 to reflect Commission processes used to work with a requestor to clarify or narrow the scope of a FOIA request, and to confirm that the requestor understands and authorizes the assessment of fees. The new paragraphs require the Commission to submit its request to clarify the scope of records requested or fee assessments in writing to the requestor.

FOIA expressly authorizes agencies to promulgate regulations providing for “multitrack processing” of FOIA requests and allows agencies to process requests on a first-in, first-out basis within each track. 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(D). During FY 2012, the Commission initiated a multitrack processing system for FOIA requests to better manage and more efficiently respond to FOIA requests. The Commission revises § 503.32(d) to reflect the Commission's current practices regarding multitrack processing of FOIA requests in which the Commission labels requests as either “simple” or “complex”. The rephrasing of the section clarifies the Commission's current practices and provides that a request may be considered “simple” if the type of records being requested are routinely requested and readily available. Initiating a simple track process has permitted the Commission to respond to relatively simple requests more quickly than requests involving complex and/or voluminous records.

Section 503.32(e) currently provides for expedited processing of a FOIA request when (1) the person requesting the records can demonstrate a compelling need; or (2) in other cases, in the Secretary's discretion. The Commission deletes paragraph (2) from § 503.32(e). This revision simplifies the Commission's criteria for determining which FOIA requests qualify for expedited processing and establish a practice consistent with other Federal agencies that only provide expedited processing when a “compelling need” can be demonstrated.

To ensure timely responses to requests for expedited processing, the Commission revises § 503.32(e)(4) to change “working days” to “calendar days” to coincide with FOIA.

The Commission must submit an annual report on its FOIA related activities to the Attorney General. The Commission revises § 502.23 to reference the activities cited in FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552(e), rather than list out all activities reported upon.

A technical revision and update of § 503.87(b) accounts for a recent redesignation of subparts with the addition of new subpart E.

This direct final rule is not a “major rule” under 5 U.S.C. 804(2). No notice of proposed rulemaking is required; therefore, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., do not apply.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires an agency to review regulations to assess their impact on small entities and prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), unless the agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rulemaking will affect only persons who file FOIA requests, and therefore, the Chairman certifies that this rulemaking will not have a significant or negative economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, requires an agency to seek and receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) before making most requests for information if the agency is requesting information from more than ten persons. 44 U.S.C. 3507. The agency must submit collections of information in proposed rules to OMB in conjunction with the publication of the proposed rulemaking. 5 CFR 1320.11. The Commission is not proposing any collections of information, as defined by 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c), as part of this rule.

The Commission assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Unified Agenda). The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document may be used to find this action in the Unified Agenda, available at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain.

The Commission expects the amendments to be noncontroversial. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, notice and comment are not required and this rule may become effective after publication in the Federal Register unless the Commission receives significant adverse comments within the specified period. The Commission recognizes that parties may have information that could impact the Commission's views and intentions with respect to the revised regulations, and the Commission intends to consider any comments filed. The Commission will withdraw the rule if it receives significant adverse comments. Filed comments that are not adverse may be considered for modifications to part 503 at a future date. If no significant adverse comment is received, the rule will become effective without additional action.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Maritime Commission amends 46 CFR part 503 as follows:

This is a summary of the Commission's Order dismissing the petition for reconsideration, DA 15-711, adopted and released on June 17, 2015. Under the Commission's rules, petitions for reconsideration that rely on facts or arguments that have not previously been presented to the Commission will be considered only under certain limited circumstances and may be dismissed by the relevant bureau if they do not meet those circumstances. The Petition relies on facts and arguments that do not meet the requirements of § 1.429(b)(1) through (3) of the Commission's rules. Petitioner previously could have presented these facts and arguments to the Commission in response to the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this proceeding, but did not present. Accordingly, pursuant to § 1.429(l) of the Commission's rules, the Petition plainly does not warrant consideration by the Commission. The Order on Reconsideration is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The document is also available for download over the Internet at http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0617/DA-15-711A1.pdf. The Commission will not send a copy of this Order pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because this Order does not have an impact on any rules of particular applicability.

A proposed rule was published on May 13, 2015 (80 FR 27278) to delete NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) clause 1852.242-72, Observance of Legal Holidays with its alternates and replace it with a new clause that prescribes conditions and procedures pertaining to the closure of NASA facilities. NFS clause 1852.242-72, Observance of Legal Holidays with its alternates, was included in Agency contracts where contractor performance was to be performed on a NASA facility. It was intended to identify dates that Government employees would not be available and provide notification to contractors of those dates considering that the absence of Government employees might impact contractor performance or contractor access to NASA facilities. Further, the same clause has two alternates, the first addresses contractors who are denied access to NASA workspaces within a NASA facility and the second addresses other instances, such as weather and safety emergencies, which could result in contractors being denied access to the entire NASA facility. Recent events, especially the Government shut-down during October 2013, have revealed a need for NASA to be more specific and to differentiate between these two conditions when contractor employees may be denied access to NASA workspaces or the entire NASA facility. The fact that Government employees may not be at a NASA facility is not an automatic reason for contractor personnel not to be required to be present at their required NASA workspace on a NASA facility. Unless a contractor is denied access to the NASA facility, contractors are expected to perform in accordance with their contractual requirements. This NFS change provides clarity and information beneficial to NASA contractors that are denied access to a NASA facility when a NASA facility is closed to all personnel. Specifically, the change deletes the prescription at NFS 1842.7001, Observance of Legal Holidays, in its entirety, and clause 1852.242-72, Observance of Legal Holidays, with alternates, and replaces it with the prescription at NFS 1842.7001 Denied Access to NASA Facilities and clause 1852.242-72, Denied Access to NASA Facilities, respectively. The clause would be included in solicitations and contracts where contractor personnel would be required to work onsite at a NASA facility.

NASA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on May 13, 2015 (80 FR 27278). The sixty-day public comment period expired on July 13, 2015. NASA received comments from one respondent. NASA reviewed the respondent's comments in the formation of the final rule. No revisions to the proposed rule were made as a result of the public comments received. A discussion of the comments is provided as follows:

Comment: The respondent submitted a comment indicating that it was in the best interest of both NASA and NASA contractors to retain the language of 48 CFR parts 1842 and 1852 as it currently exists.

Response: NASA disagrees with retaining the existing NFS clause. As stated in the proposed rule, there was a need for NASA to be more specific when contractor employees may be denied access to NASA workspaces or the entire NASA facility. This revision to the NFS provides this clarity with information that is beneficial to both the Government and NASA contractors who are denied access to a NASA facility when that facility is closed to all personnel.

Comment: The respondent submitted a comment stating that the revised language in the proposed rule is actually less clear than the current “Holidays” clause and may adversely impact consistency of application. The respondent stated that the revised language suggests that direction from the contracting officer may or may not be forthcoming; the contractor “minimize unnecessary contract costs and performance impact” by performing work off-site or having personnel perform other duties makes it wholly unclear what NASA's expectations of the contractor may be, and what potential financial losses may or may not be incurred, depending on various circumstances. The respondent stated the proposed revised language creates a significantly increased potential for inconsistent interpretation not only for contractors at different NASA installations, but for different contractors at the same NASA installation.

Response: NASA disagrees that the revised clause is less clear and may have inconsistent application. The revised clause indicates that the contractor shall exercise sound judgment to minimize unnecessary contract costs and provides examples of such actions. The examples are provided for the contractor to consider and not to limit the contractor. The revised clause will be included in NASA solicitations and contracts where contractor personnel would be required to work onsite at a NASA facility and NASA does not agree that there is potential for inconsistent interpretation or application.

Comment: The respondent submitted a comment stating the proposed language may lead to unintentional, but consequential, violations of the Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C. 1341), to the financial detriment of contractor organizations. The respondent indicated that their issue is with the proposed revised clause 1852.242-72 paragraph (a)(3)(b), and the respondent's concern that implementation of this clause will set up inevitable competitive pressure (even if self-imposed) for contractors to compel their employees to continue NASA contract work off-site or through teleworking in the event of a NASA installation closure (regardless of the reason for the closure), even in the absence of approval that such work will be covered as an allowable cost. Should such costs then subsequently not be allowed, this could effectively place NASA as an agency in the role of accepting voluntary services from the contractor and its employees, and clearly imposes a financial risk for the Contractor that is not imposed by the current language of 1852.242-72.

Response: NASA disagrees that the revised clause may lead to violations of the Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C. 1341). The revised clause indicates that in all instances where contractor employees are denied access or required to vacate a NASA facility, in part or in whole, the contractor shall be responsible to ensure contractor personnel working under the contract comply and the contractor shall exercise sound judgment to minimize unnecessary contract costs and performance. The revised clause provides an example for contractors to consider e.g. performing required work off-site. The revised clause does not require contractors to compel their employees to continue NASA contract work off-site or through teleworking; the revised clause merely provides an example for contractors to consider in meeting the contract requirements in the event of a NASA facility closure. NASA does not agree that taking a prudent business decision in the event of a NASA facility closure will lead to violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C. 1341).

Comment: The respondent stated that the proposed language may lead to increased, versus decreased, administrative burden for both NASA and on-site contractors, resulting in a decrease of value delivered to the Government. The respondent indicated that contractors will need to develop revised employee policies that cover all contingencies of the revised language of 1852.242-72. Contractors will need to vet the language of these policy changes with their employment attorneys, adding costs that will ultimately be included in indirect rates. The respondent indicated that the administrative burden to fully and fairly implement revised 1852.242-72 would be increased for both contractors and NASA.

Response: NASA does not agree that the revised clause may lead to increased administrative burden for both NASA and on-site contractors. Contractors performing work on a NASA facility should already have established company polices to cover events referenced in the revised clause such as policy related to Federal public holidays. Also, since the revised clause will be included in NASA solicitations a company interested in submitting a proposal would review applicable company polices as part of the proposal preparation and address changes, if any, at that time with little to no additional cost or administrative burden.

Comment: The respondent stated that the proposed revised clause 1852.242-72 would institutionalize a “two-class” system of treatment of Government employees versus contractor employees, to the detriment of effective teamwork and morale. The respondent indicated that that the proposed revised clause would create competitive pressure for contractors to require their employees to work off-site or telework during virtually all circumstances when NASA installations may be closed, when no such requirement will apply to Federal employees. The respondent stated that in reference to the proposed revised clause 1852.242-72 paragraph (e)(1), which states that “Moreover, the leave status of NASA employees shall not be conveyed or imputed to contractor personnel.” The respondent saw no compelling reason why a decision by an appropriately empowered federal official to grant Federal employees leave under appropriate circumstances should not be conveyed to contractor employees, along with appropriate guidance from the contractor as to whether or not contractor employees are to report to work. The responded noted that inconsistent treatment of contractor employees, as compared to their Federal colleagues under the same circumstances, would become institutionalized by the proposed revised clause and would be detrimental to teamwork and morale.

Response: NASA does not agree. While NASA federal and contractor employees are members of the same NASA team, different standards apply to the various members of the team. NASA acquires services from contractors utilizing nonpersonal services contracts. A nonpersonal services contract means a contract under which the personnel rendering the services are not subject, either by the contract's terms or by the manner of its administration, to the supervision and control usually prevailing in relationships between the Government and its employees (see FAR 37.101). A personal services contract is characterized by the employer-employee relationship it creates between the Government and the contractor's personnel. The Government is normally required to obtain its employees by direct hire under competitive appointment or other procedures required by the civil service laws. Obtaining personal services by contract, rather than by direct hire, circumvents those laws unless Congress has specifically authorized acquisition of the services by contract. Agencies are prohibited from awarding personal services contracts unless specifically authorized by statute to do so. An employer-employee relationship under a service contract occurs when, as a result of (i) the contract's terms or (ii) the manner of its administration during performance, contractor personnel are subject to the relatively continuous supervision and control of a Government officer or employee (see FAR 37.104). In addition, the leave administration for Federal employees is covered under title 5 of the United States Code and title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The leave administration for a contractor is covered under the contractor's company policy. Therefore, the revised clause language is correct and the leave status of NASA Federal employees shall not be conveyed or imputed to contractor personnel.

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

NASA certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because it provides clarity and information beneficial to NASA contractors that are denied access to a NASA facility when a NASA facility is closed. The rule imposes no new reporting requirements. The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules. No alternatives were identified that would meet the objectives of the rule. No comments from small entities were submitted in reference to the Regulatory Flexibility Act request in the proposed rule.

The Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L. 104-13) does not apply because this final rule contains no information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

Accordingly, 48 CFR parts 1842 and 1852 are amended as follows:

On April 13, 2015, we published in the Federal Register (80 FR 19852) a proposal to amend 50 CFR part 20. The proposal provided a background and overview of the migratory bird hunting regulations process, and addressed the establishment of seasons, limits, and other regulations for hunting migratory game birds under §§ 20.101 through 20.107, 20.109, and 20.110 of subpart K. Major steps in the 2015-16 regulatory cycle relating to open public meetings and Federal Register notifications were also identified in the April 13 proposed rule. Further, we explained that all sections of subsequent documents outlining hunting frameworks and guidelines were organized under numbered headings. Subsequent documents will refer only to numbered items requiring attention. Therefore, it is important to note that we omit those items requiring no attention, and remaining numbered items might be discontinuous or appear incomplete.

On June 11, 2015, we published in the Federal Register (80 FR 33223) a second document providing supplemental proposals for early- and late-season migratory bird hunting regulations. The June 11 supplement also provided detailed information on the 2015-16 regulatory schedule and announced the Service Regulations Committee (SRC) and Flyway Council meetings.

On June 24-25, 2015, we held open meetings with the Flyway Council Consultants at which participants reviewed information on the current status of migratory shore and upland game birds and developed 2015-16 migratory game bird regulations recommendations for these species plus regulations for migratory game birds in Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands; special September waterfowl seasons in designated States; special sea duck seasons in the Atlantic Flyway; and extended falconry seasons. In addition, we reviewed and discussed preliminary information on the status of waterfowl. We published the proposed frameworks for early-season regulations in a July 21, 2015, Federal Register (80 FR 43266) and final frameworks in an August 21, 2015, Federal Register (80 FR 51090).

On July 29-30, 2015, we held open meetings with the Flyway Council Consultants at which the participants reviewed the status of waterfowl and developed recommendations for the 2015-16 regulations for these species. Proposed hunting regulations were discussed for late seasons. We published the proposed frameworks for late-season regulations (primarily hunting seasons that start after October 1 and most waterfowl seasons) in an August 25, 2015, Federal Register (80 FR 51658).

The final rule described here is the sixth in the series of proposed, supplemental, and final rulemaking documents for migratory game bird hunting regulations and deals specifically with amending subpart K of 50 CFR part 20. It sets hunting seasons, hours, areas, and limits for mourning, white-winged, and white-tipped doves; band-tailed pigeons; rails; moorhens and gallinules; woodcock; common snipe; sandhill cranes; sea ducks; early (September) waterfowl seasons; migratory game birds in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands; youth waterfowl hunting day; and some extended falconry seasons. This final rule is the culmination of the rulemaking process for the migratory game bird early hunting seasons, which started with the April 13 proposed rule. As discussed elsewhere in this document, we supplemented that proposal on June 11 and July 21, and published final early-season frameworks in an August 21, 2015, Federal Register that provided the season selection criteria from which the States selected these seasons. This final rule sets the migratory game bird early hunting seasons based on that input from the States. We previously addressed all comments pertaining to early season issues in that August 21 Federal Register.

The programmatic document, “Second Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (EIS 20130139),” filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on May 24, 2013, addresses NEPA compliance by the Service for issuance of the annual framework regulations for hunting of migratory game bird species. We published a notice of availability in the Federal Register on May 31, 2013 (78 FR 32686), and our Record of Decision on July 26, 2013 (78 FR 45376). We also address NEPA compliance for waterfowl hunting frameworks through the annual preparation of separate environmental assessments, the most recent being “Duck Hunting Regulations for 2015-16,” with its corresponding August 2015 finding of no significant impact. In addition, an August 1985 environmental assessment entitled “Guidelines for Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations on Federal Indian Reservations and Ceded Lands” is available from the person indicated under the caption FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), provides that, “The Secretary shall review other programs administered by him and utilize such programs in furtherance of the purposes of this Act” (and) shall “insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out * * * is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of [critical] habitat. * * *.” Consequently, we conducted formal consultations to ensure that actions resulting from these regulations would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat. Findings from these consultations are included in a biological opinion, which concluded that the regulations are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species. Additionally, these findings may have caused modification of some regulatory measures previously proposed, and the final regulations reflect any such modifications. Our biological opinions resulting from this section 7 consultation are public documents available at the address indicated under ADDRESSES.

Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. OIRA has reviewed this rule and has determined that this rule is significant because it would have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy. Executive Order 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 executive order 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.

An updated economic analysis was prepared for the 2013-14 season. This analysis was based on data from the newly released 2011 National Hunting and Fishing Survey, the most recent year for which data are available (see discussion in Regulatory Flexibility Act section below). This analysis estimated consumer surplus for three alternatives for duck hunting (estimates for other species are not quantified due to lack of data). The alternatives were: (1) Issue restrictive regulations allowing fewer days than those issued during the 2012-13 season, (2) issue moderate regulations allowing more days than those in alternative 1, and (3) issue liberal regulations identical to the regulations in the 2012-13 season. For the 2013-14 season, we chose Alternative 3, with an estimated consumer surplus across all flyways of $317.8-$416.8 million. For the 2015-16 season, we have also chosen alternative 3. We also chose alternative 3 for the 2009-10, the 2010-11, the 2011-12, the 2012-13, and the 2014-15 seasons. The 2013-14 analysis is part of the record for this rule and is available at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2014-0064.

The annual migratory bird hunting regulations have a significant economic impact on substantial numbers of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). We analyzed the economic impacts of the annual hunting regulations on small business entities in detail as part of the 1981 cost-benefit analysis. This analysis was revised annually from 1990-95. In 1995, the Service issued a Small Entity Flexibility Analysis (Analysis), which was subsequently updated in 1996, 1998, 2004, 2008, and 2013. The primary source of information about hunter expenditures for migratory game bird hunting is the National Hunting and Fishing Survey, which is conducted at 5-year intervals. The 2013 Analysis was based on the 2011 National Hunting and Fishing Survey and the U.S. Department of Commerce's County Business Patterns, from which it was estimated that migratory bird hunters would spend approximately $1.5 billion at small businesses in 2013. Copies of the Analysis are available at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2014-0064.

This rule is a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. For the reasons outlined above, this rule will have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. However, because this rule establishes hunting seasons, we are not deferring the effective date under the exemption contained in 5 U.S.C. 808(1).

This final rule does not contain any new information collection that requires approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. OMB has reviewed and approved the information collection requirements associated with migratory bird surveys and assigned the following OMB control numbers:

• 1018-0019—North American Woodcock Singing Ground Survey (expires 4/30/2015).

• 1018-0023—Migratory Bird Surveys (expires 6/30/2017). Includes Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program, Migratory Bird Hunter Surveys, Sandhill Crane Survey, and Parts Collection Survey.

We have determined and certify, in compliance with the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this rulemaking will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local or State government or private entities. Therefore, this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

The Department, in promulgating this rule, has determined that this rule will not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.

In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this rule, authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-711), does not have significant takings implications and does not affect any constitutionally protected property rights. This rule will not result in the physical occupancy of property, the physical invasion of property, or the regulatory taking of any property. In fact, this rule allows hunters to exercise otherwise unavailable privileges and, therefore, reduces restrictions on the use of private and public property.

Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. While this rule is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, it is not expected to adversely affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Thus, this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated possible effects on Federally-recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no effects on Indian trust resources. However, in the April 13 Federal Register, we solicited proposals for special migratory bird hunting regulations for certain Tribes on Federal Indian reservations, off-reservation trust lands, and ceded lands for the 2015-16 migratory bird hunting season. The resulting proposals were contained in a separate August 4, 2015, proposed rule (80 FR 46218). By virtue of these actions, we have consulted with Tribes.

Due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, the Federal Government has been given responsibility over these species by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We annually prescribe frameworks from which the States make selections regarding the hunting of migratory birds, and we employ guidelines to establish special regulations on Federal Indian reservations and ceded lands. This process preserves the ability of the States and tribes to determine which seasons meet their individual needs. Any State or Indian tribe may be more restrictive than the Federal frameworks at any time. The frameworks are developed in a cooperative process with the States and the Flyway Councils. This process allows States to participate in the development of frameworks from which they will make selections, thereby having an influence on their own regulations. These rules do not have a substantial direct effect on fiscal capacity, change the roles or responsibilities of Federal or State governments, or intrude on State policy or administration. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, these regulations do not have significant federalism effects and do not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

The preliminary proposed rulemaking (April 13 Federal Register) opened the public comment period for 2015-16 migratory game bird hunting regulations. We previously addressed all comments pertaining to early season issues in the August 21, 2015, Federal Register.

The rulemaking process for migratory game bird hunting must, by its nature, operate under severe time constraints. However, we intend that the public be given the greatest possible opportunity to comment. Thus, when the preliminary proposed rulemaking was published, we established what we believed were the longest periods possible for public comment. In doing this, we recognized that, when the comment period closed, time would be of the essence. That is, if there were a delay in the effective date of these regulations after this final rulemaking, States would have insufficient time to select season dates and limits; to communicate those selections to us; and to establish and publicize the necessary regulations and procedures to implement their decisions. We find that “good cause” exists, within the terms of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act, and therefore, under authority of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (July 3, 1918), as amended (16 U.S.C. 703-711), these regulations will take effect less than 30 days after publication. Accordingly, with each conservation agency having had an opportunity to participate in selecting the hunting seasons desired for its State or Territory on those species of migratory birds for which open seasons are now prescribed, and consideration having been given to all other relevant matters presented, certain sections of title 50, chapter I, subchapter B, part 20, subpart K, are hereby amended as set forth below.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 50, chapter I, subchapter B, part 20, subpart K of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: