Federal Register Vol. 80, No.205,

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on August 17, 2015 to amend 5 CFR part 950 to change the effective date of the new rule from January 1, 2016 to January 1, 2017. During the comment period, OPM received two comments, including one from a Federal agency and one from a Local Federal Coordinating Committee (LFCC). These comments are addressed below.

The Department of Defense expressed its support for the amendment to allow additional time to test new systems before they are deployed. The Greater Arkansas CFC LFCC requested clarification on the process by which a contract will be awarded to a vendor to serve as the Central Campaign Administrator and the method by which the system will be tested.

The revision involves the change of the effective date of the new CFC regulations published in the Federal Register on April 17, 2014. The new effective date for the CFC regulations would ensure that the tools need to put these reforms in place—including the pivotal online charity application and donor pledging systems—are thoroughly tested and fully operational before being made available to charities and donors.

On August 17, 2015 (80 FR 49173), OPM published a proposed rule with requests for public comment in the Federal Register. The Agency received two comments, neither of which opposed the change of date. It is therefore 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. Charitable organizations applying to the CFC have an existing, independent obligation to comply with the eligibility and public accountability standards contained in current CFC regulations. Streamlining these standards will be less burdensome.

This rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with Executive Orders 12866 and 13563.

Under the regulations in “Subpart-Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-73, referred to below as the regulations), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture prohibits or restricts the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent plant pests from being introduced into and spread within the United States.

On April 24, 2015, we published in the Federal Register (80 FR 22930-22934, Docket No. APHIS-2014-0086) a proposal 1 to amend the regulations to allow the common bell pepper (Capsicum annuum L.), locoto pepper (Capsicum baccatum L.), habanero pepper (Capsicum chinense Jacq.), tabasco pepper (Capsicum frutescens L.), and manzano pepper (Capsicum pubescens Ruiz & Pav.) to be imported into the United States under a systems approach. (Hereafter we refer to these species as “peppers.”) We also prepared a pest risk assessment (PRA) and a risk management document (RMD). The PRA evaluates the risks associated with the importation of fresh peppers from Ecuador into the United States. The RMD relies upon the findings of the PRA to determine the phytosanitary measures necessary to ensure the safe importation into the United States of fresh peppers from Ecuador.

In the proposed rule, we noted that the PRA rated six plant pests as having a high pest risk potential for following the pathway of peppers from Ecuador into the United States: The insects Anastrepha fraterculus, Ceratitis capitata, Spodoptera litura, Thrips palmi, and Tuta absoluta, and the fungus Puccinia pampeana. The PRA rated the insect Neoleucinodes elegantalis and the Andean potato mottle virus with a medium pest risk potential.

We determined in the PRA that measures beyond standard port of arrival inspection will mitigate the risks posed by these plant pests and proposed a systems approach that includes requirements for fruit fly trapping, pre-harvest inspections, production sites, and packinghouse procedures designed to exclude quarantine pests. We also proposed that the fruit be imported in commercial consignments only and accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the national plant protection organization of Ecuador stating that the consignment was produced and prepared for export in accordance with the systems approach.

We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending June 23, 2015. We did not receive any comments.

We have made one minor change to this final rule, i.e., we have added tomato leaf miner as another common name associated with the plant pest Tuta absoluta.

Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule with the change noted.

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

In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the potential economic effects of this action on small entities. The analysis is summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or on the Regulations.gov Web site (see ADDRESSES above for instructions for accessing Regulations.gov).

This rule amends the regulations to allow the importation of fresh peppers from Ecuador into the United States when a systems approach to pest risk mitigation is used to prevent the introduction of quarantine pests. The systems approach will integrate prescribed mitigation measures that cumulatively achieve the appropriate level of phytosanitary protection.

The most recent production data available show that fresh pepper yields in Ecuador have expanded from approximately 12,522 pounds per hectare (pounds/ha) in 1996 to approximately 66,361 pounds/ha in 2006. The total quantity of fresh peppers that were exported from Ecuador in 2006 and 2007 was 96.3 metric tons (MT) and 206.5 MT, respectively. Sea shipping containers that are 40 feet in length hold approximately 20 U.S. MT. Considering the total volume exported from Ecuador during these years, APHIS estimates imports of no more than 10 containers (200 MT) of fresh peppers from Ecuador into the United States annually. This quantity is equivalent to less than 0.02 percent of annual U.S. fresh pepper production. Similarly, the estimated quantity of fresh pepper imports from Ecuador (200 MT annually) is minimal compared to the total quantity of fresh peppers imported by the United States in recent years (800,000 MT annually).

In the United States, the average value of bell pepper production per farm in 2012 was approximately $52,300, and the average value of chili pepper production per farm was approximately $20,700. Both levels are well below the small-entity standard of $750,000. Establishments classified within NAICS 111219, including pepper farms, are considered small by the Small Business Administration (SBA) if annual sales are not more than $750,000. Accordingly, pepper growers are predominantly small entities according to the SBA standard. Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This final rule allows fresh pepper fruit to be imported into the United States from Ecuador. State and local laws and regulations regarding fresh pepper fruit imported under this rule will be preempted while the fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh fruits are generally imported for immediate distribution and sale to the consuming public, and remain in foreign commerce until sold to the ultimate consumer. The question of when foreign commerce ceases in other cases must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. No retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and this rule will not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information collection or recordkeeping requirements included in this final rule, which were filed under 0579-0437, have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). When OMB notifies us of its decision, if approval is denied, we will publish a document in the Federal Register providing notice of what action we plan to take.

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this rule, please contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2727.

The Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive Program (FINI) is authorized under section 4405 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 7517), as added by section 4208 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-79).

A primary function of NIFA is the fair, effective, and efficient administration of Federal assistance programs implementing agricultural research, education, and extension programs. The awards made under the above authority are subject to the NIFA assistance regulations at 7 CFR part 3430, Competitive and Noncompetitive Non-formula Federal Assistance Programs—General Award Administrative Provisions. NIFA's development and publication of this part serve to enhance its accountability and to standardize procedures across the Federal assistance programs it administers while providing transparency to the public. NIFA published 7 CFR part 3430 with subparts A through E as a final rule on September 4, 2009 [74 FR 45736-45752]. These regulations apply to all Federal assistance programs administered by NIFA except for the capacity grant programs identified in 7 CFR 3430.1(f), the Small Business Innovation Research programs, with implementing regulations at 7 CFR part 3403, and the Veterinary Medicine Loan Repayment Program, with implementing regulations at 7 CFR part 3431.

NIFA organized part 3430 as follows: Subparts A through E provide administrative provisions for all competitive and noncompetitive non-capacity Federal assistance programs. Subparts F and thereafter apply to specific NIFA programs.

NIFA is, to the extent practical, using the following subpart template for each program authority: (1) Applicability of regulations; (2) purpose; (3) definitions (those in addition to or different from § 3430.2); (4) eligibility; (5) project types and priorities; (6) funding restrictions; and (7) matching requirements. Subparts F and thereafter contain the above seven components in this order. Additional sections may be added for a specific program if there are additional requirements or a need for additional rules for the program (e.g., additional reporting requirements). Through this rulemaking, NIFA is adding subpart P for the administrative provisions that are specific to the FINI program.

This action has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. The rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; nor will it materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs; nor will it have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; nor will it adversely affect the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities in a material way. Further, it does not raise a novel legal or policy issue arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or principles set forth in the Executive Order.

This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, (5 U.S.C. 601-612). The Department certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rule does not involve regulatory and informational requirements regarding businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.

The Department certifies that this final rule has been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Department concludes that this final rule does not impose any new information requirements or increase the burden hours. In addition to the SF-424 form families (i.e., Research and Related and Mandatory) and the SF-425 Federal Financial Report (FFR) No. 0348-0061, NIFA has three currently approved OMB information collections associated with this rulemaking: OMB Information Collection No. 0524-0042, NIFA REEport; No. 0524-0041, NIFA Application Review Process; and No. 0524-0026, Assurance of Compliance with the Department of Agriculture Regulations Assuring Civil Rights Compliance and Organizational Information.

This final rule applies to the following Federal financial assistance programs administered by NIFA: CFDA No. 10.331 Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive Grants Program.

The Department has reviewed this final rule in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order No. 13132 and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq., and has found no potential or 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 there is no Federal mandate contained herein that could result in increased expenditures by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector, the Department has not prepared a budgetary impact statement.

Executive Order 12866 and the President's Memorandum of June 1, 1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. The Department invites comments on how to make this final rule easier to understand.

Accordingly, 7 CFR part 3430 is amended as set forth below:

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all PW PW4164, PW4168, PW4168A, PW4164-1D, PW4168-1D, PW4168A-1D, and PW4170 turbofan engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 8, 2015 (80 FR 32316). The NPRM was prompted by findings of cracks in the 6th stage LPT disk. The NPRM proposed to require removal of the affected 6th stage LPT disks. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM (80 FR 32316, June 8, 2015) and the FAA's response to this comment.

An individual commenter requested that we define “LPT shop visit” more precisely to prevent unnecessary discussions regarding its meaning.

We agree. We revised the definition to read: “For the purpose of this AD, an “LPT shop visit” is defined as the removal of the 6th stage disk from the LPT rotor and the removal of the blades from the disk.”

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the change described previously.

We reviewed PW Service Bulletin (SB) No. PW4G-100-72-252, dated November 18, 2014. The SB provides a list of PW 6th stage LPT disks affected by this AD. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or see ADDRESSES for other ways to access this service information.

We estimate that this AD affects 18 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that no additional hours will be required per engine to comply with this AD because the engine is already disassembled in the shop when we require the part to be removed. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. We estimate that 6 engines will require replacement parts during an LPT shop visit, and that the prorated replacement parts cost will be $108,800 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $652,800.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and

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

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

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to the specified products. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on July 8, 2015 (80 FR 38990). The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (80 FR 38990, July 8, 2015).

We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed.

Technify Motors GmbH has issued Service Bulletin No. SB TMG 125-1018 P1, Revision 1, dated February 5, 2015. The service information describes procedures for installing a start phase monitoring system and associated specified software mapping on particular airplane models. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this final rule.

Technify Motors GmbH has also issued Technify Motors SB No. TM TAE 000-0007, Revision 28, dated February 5, 2015; Technify Motors Installation Manual No. IM-02-02, Issue 4, Revision 2, dated January 30, 2015, with Chapter 02-IM-13-02, section 13.8.16, Revision 1, dated November 28, 2014; Technify Motors SB No. SB TMG 601-1007 P1, Revision 3, dated February 5, 2015; and Technify Motors SB No. SB TMG 651-1004 P1, Revision 2, dated February 5, 2015. Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH (DAI) has issued DAI Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 42-109/1, dated February 4, 2015; and DAI MSB No. 42-007/16, dated February 4, 2015. The service information describes procedures for installing a start phase monitoring system and associated specified software mapping.

We estimate that this AD affects 97 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 3 hours per engine to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. For 13 of the engines, required parts cost about $285 per engine. For 84 of the engines, required parts cost about $206 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $45,744.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and

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

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it removes Class E airspace at O'Neal Airport, Vincennes, IN.

During an airspace review, the FAA found that O'Neal Airport, Vincennes, IN, has been abandoned since in 2009, therefore, controlled airspace is removed from the area. Since this eliminates the impact of controlled airspace on users of the National Airspace System, notice and public procedure under 553(b) are unnecessary. Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Z dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Z, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 removes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of O'Neal Airport, Vincennes, IN. The airport has been abandoned; therefore, controlled airspace is no longer necessary.

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

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

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes controlled airspace at Concordia Parish Airport, Vidalia, LA.

On August 13, 2015, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Concordia Parish Airport, Vidalia, LA, (80 FR 48469). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This action amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.0-mile radius of Concordia Parish Airport, Vidalia, LA, to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at the airport. This action enhances the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

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

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

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes controlled airspace at Pearson Field, Vancouver, WA.

On August 27, 2015, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E surface area airspace Pearson Field, Vancouver, WA (80 FR 51970). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. Eight comments were received on the proposal. Seven comments were received supporting the proposal. One comment was received from Bryan Painter stating that the airport did not need Class E surface airspace. The FAA does not agree. The FAA's decision to establish Class E surface airspace at Pearson Field is the result of years of collaborative efforts between local aircraft owner/operators, airport officials, and the FAA to make the airspace safe for aircraft flying within the National Airspace System, specifically within Portland International Airport airspace.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E surface area airspace, at Pearson Field, Vancouver, WA. A review of the airspace revealed current standard instrument approach procedures not being fully contained within controlled airspace. Class E surface area airspace is established within an area 4.9 miles west, 4 miles east, 2.9 miles north, and 1.8 miles south of Pearson Field.

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

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

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

Pursuant to Section 206 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (the Act), codified at 22 U.S.C. 3926, the Secretary of State may prescribe regulations to carry out functions under the Act. The Secretary has done so in the Department's Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM).

The FAM is the formal written document for recording, maintaining, and issuing Department directives, which are written communications establishing and prescribing the organizations, policies, or procedures that provide an official basis of Department operation.

The Foreign Service includes personnel not only from the Department, but U.S. Agency for International Development, and certain offices within the Departments of Commerce and Agriculture, among others. FSOs may be recruited both from current federal personnel (for example, from the civil service) and from the general public. Recruitment from current federal service is covered by the FAM.

The procedures relating to recruitment of FSOs from the general public are covered by rules published in the CFR, in part 11. However, since many of the policies and procedures dealing with the latter appointments are the same as those used to appoint current federal personnel to the Foreign Service, the provisions of part 11 and the FAM must be consistent. Therefore, where part 11 uses the same procedures as the FAM, it refers to the relevant FAM provisions.

Other than a minor amendment in 2002 (see 67 FR 46108), part 11 has remained as it was drafted 31 years ago; whereas, the relevant provisions of the FAM were updated in 2013. This rulemaking harmonizes the two authorities. The Department believes that a revised part 11, together with the FAM, provide comprehensive guidance for both internal stakeholders and interested members of the general public on the appointment of Foreign Service Officers.

The Department's revision of part 11 is part of its Retrospective Review conducted pursuant to Executive Order 13563.

The revision to part 11 of 22 CFR relates to the Department's organization, procedure, or practice and is not subject to the notice-and-comment procedures of 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

The Department certifies that this rulemaking is not expected to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, and Executive Order 13272, section 3(b).

This rulemaking is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking.

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing or adopting any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by state, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. This rulemaking will not result in any such expenditure nor will it significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

This rulemaking 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. Nor will the rule have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders 12372 and 13132.

Although the Department of State is generally exempt from the provisions of Executive Order 12866, it has reviewed this rulemaking to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in these Executive Orders, and has determined that the benefits of this rulemaking justify any costs. The Department cannot identify any cost to the public associated with this rulemaking. The Department does not consider this rulemaking to be a significant regulatory action within the scope of section 3 of Executive Order 12866. The Department considers this rule to be part of its Retrospective Review conducted pursuant to Executive Order 13563.

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

The Department has determined that this rulemaking will not have tribal implications, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not pre-empt tribal law. Accordingly, the requirements of Section 5 of Executive Order 13175 do not apply to this rulemaking.

The Department of State has determined that this rulemaking does not affect any existing collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act, nor does it create new information collections. The Department invites public comment on whether the Foreign Service Office Test Registration (OMB Control Number 1405-0008) burden estimates should be modified as a result of the notification requirements in Section 11.20(d)(2)(i)(B).

Accordingly, revise 22 CFR part 11 to read as follows:

The Virginia Department of Transportation, who owns and operates the Coleman Memorial Bridge (US 17), has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations to facilitate mechanical repairs to the movable grating between one of the movable spans and the fixed bridge. The bridge is a swing bridge and has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 60 feet above mean high water.

The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.1025. Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 10 p.m. on November 14, 2015, until 7 a.m. on November 15, 2015. If necessary due to inclement weather on November 14, 2015, the bridge will remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 10 p.m. on November 21, 2015, until 7 a.m. on November 22, 2015. The York River is used by a variety of vessels including deep draft ocean-going vessels, U.S. government vessels, small commercial fishing vessels, recreational vessels and tug and barge traffic. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with U.S. government and commercial waterway users.

Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no alternate route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in the closed position. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impacts caused by this temporary deviation.

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

BNSF has requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule for the BNSF RR Bridge 37.0, mile 3.5, crossing Snohomish River, at Marysville, WA. BNSF requested the BNSF RR Bridge 37.0 remain in the closed-to-navigation position for rail maintenance. This maintenance has been scheduled, and is funded as part of the Cascade Corridor Improvement Project.

The normal operating schedule for this bridge operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5 which states it must open promptly on signal at any time, and requires constant attendance by with a drawtender. BNSF RR Bridge 37.0 provides 10 feet of vertical clearance in the closed-to-navigation position.

This deviation allows the BNSF RR Bridge 37.0, at mile 3.5 crossing Snohomish River, to remain in the closed-to-navigation position, and need not open for maritime traffic from 10 a.m. until 4 p.m. from November 1, 2015 through November 15, 2015; except, the bridge will remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 8 a.m. until Midnight on November 10, 2015 and from 8 a.m. until Midnight on November 12, 2015. The bridge shall operate in accordance to 33 CFR part 117, subpart A at all other times.

Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed-to-navigation position may do so at anytime. The bridge will be required to open, if needed, for vessels engaged in emergency response operations during this closure period, but any time lost to emergency openings will necessitate a time extension added to the approved dates. Waterway usage on this part of the Snohomish River includes tug and barge to small pleasure craft. No immediate alternate route for vessels to pass is available on this part of the river. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways 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 their regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

Background Proposed Rule and Public Comment Period

On September 4, 2014, the National Park Service (NPS) published the proposed rule in the Federal Register (79 FR 52595). The rule was open for public comment for 90 days, until December 3, 2014. The NPS reopened the comment period from January 15, 2015 through February 15, 2015 (80 FR 2065). The NPS invited comments through the mail, hand delivery, and through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.

During the first comment period in 2014, the NPS held 17 public hearings in various locations in Alaska. Approximately 168 individuals attended these hearings and approximately 120 participants provided testimony during the formal public comment sessions. During the second comment period, nine public meetings were held in the State. A total of 29 individuals attended the public meetings, and a total of nine attendees spoke during the formal public comment sessions. The NPS also held two statewide government-to-government consultation teleconferences, and offered to consult in person, with tribes. Four comments were received during the statewide government-to-government consultation conference calls and the NPS met with three tribes that requested consultation in person (Allakaket, Tazlina, and Chesh'na (Chistochina)).

The NPS received approximately 70,000 comments on the proposed rule during the public comment period. These included unique comment letters, form letters, and signed petitions. Approximately 65,000 comments were form letters. The NPS also received three petitions with a combined total of approximately 75,000 signatures. Some commenters sent comments by multiple methods. NPS attempted to match such duplicates and count them as one comment. Additionally, many comments were signed by more than one person. NPS counted a letter or petition as a single comment, regardless of the number of signatories.

A summary of comments and NPS responses is provided below in the section entitled “Summary of and Responses to Public Comments.” After considering the public comments and additional review, the NPS made some changes in the final rule from that proposed. These changes are summarized below in the section entitled “Changes from the Proposed Rule.”

In enacting the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. 410hh-410hh-5; 3101-3233) in 1980, Congress's stated purpose was to establish in Alaska various conservation system units that contain nationally significant values, including units of the National Park System, in order to preserve them “for the benefit, use, education, and inspiration of present and future generations[.]” 16 U.S.C. 3101(a). Included among the express purposes in ANILCA are preservation of wildlife, wilderness values, and natural undisturbed, unaltered ecosystems while allowing for recreational opportunities, including sport hunting. 16 U.S.C. 3101(a)-(b).

The legislative history of ANILCA reinforces the purpose of the National Park System units to maintain natural, undisturbed ecosystems. “Certain units have been selected because they provide undisturbed natural laboratories—among them the Noatak, Charley, and Bremner River watersheds.” Alaska National Interest Lands, Report of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Report No. 96-413 at page 137 [hereafter Senate Report]. Legislative history identifies Gates of the Artic, Denali, Katmai, and Glacier Bay National Parks as “large sanctuaries where fish and wildlife may roam freely, developing their social structures and evolving over long periods of time as nearly as possible without the changes that extensive human activities would cause.” Senate Report, at page 137.

The congressional designation of “national preserves” in Alaska was for the specific and sole purpose of allowing sport hunting and commercial trapping, unlike areas designated as national parks. 126 Cong. Rec. H10549 (Nov. 12, 1980) (Statement of Rep. Udall). 16 U.S.C. 3201 directs that national preserves shall be managed “in the same manner as a national park . . . except that the taking of fish and wildlife for sport purposes and subsistence uses, and trapping shall be allowed in a national preserve[.]” Under ANILCA and as used in this document, the term “subsistence” refers to subsistence activities by rural Alaska residents authorized by Title VIII of ANILCA, which ANILCA identifies as the priority consumptive use of fish and wildlife on public lands. 16 U.S.C. 3144. Subsistence taking of fish and wildlife in NPS areas is generally regulated by the Department of the Interior. Taking wildlife for sport purposes in national preserves is generally regulated by the State of Alaska.

In addressing wildlife harvest, the legislative history provided “the Secretary shall manage National Park System units in Alaska to assure the optimum functioning of entire ecological systems in undisturbed natural habitats. The standard to be met in regulating the taking of fish and wildlife and trapping, is that the preeminent natural values of the Park System shall be protected in perpetuity, and shall not be jeopardized by human uses.” 126 Cong. Rec. H10549 (Nov. 12, 1980) (Statement of Rep. Udall). This is reflected in the statutory purposes of various national preserves that were established by ANILCA, which include the protection of populations of fish and wildlife, including specific references to predators such as brown/grizzly bears and wolves.

Activities related to taking wildlife remain subject to other federal laws, including the mandate of the NPS Organic Act (54 U.S.C. 100101) “to conserve the scenery, natural and historic objects, and wild life” in units of the National Park System and to provide for visitor enjoyment of the same for this and future generations. Policies implementing the NPS Organic Act require the NPS to protect natural ecosystems and processes, including the natural abundances, diversities, distributions, densities, age-class distributions, populations, habitats, genetics, and behaviors of wildlife. NPS Management Policies 2006 §§ 4.1, 4.4.1, 4.4.1.2, 4.4.2. The legislative history of ANILCA reflects that Congress did not intend to modify the NPS Organic Act or its implementing policies in this respect: “the Committee recognizes that the policies and legal authorities of the managing agencies will determine the nature and degree of management programs affecting ecological relationships, population's dynamics, and manipulations of the components of the ecosystem.” Senate Report, at pages 232-331. NPS policy states that “activities to reduce . . . native species for the purpose of increasing numbers of harvested species (i.e. predator control)” are not allowed on lands managed by the NPS. NPS Management Policies 2006 § 4.4.3.

The State's legal framework for managing wildlife in Alaska is based on sustained yield, which is defined by State statute to mean “the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of the ability to support a high level of human harvest of game[.]” AS § 16.05.255(k)(5). To that end, the Alaska Board of Game (BOG) is directed to “adopt regulations to provide for intensive management programs to restore the abundance or productivity of identified big game prey populations as necessary to achieve human consumptive use goals[.]” AS § 16.05.255(e). Allowances that manipulate natural systems and processes to achieve these goals, including actions to reduce or increase wildlife populations for harvest, conflict with laws and policies applicable to NPS areas that require preserving natural wildlife populations. See, e.g., NPS Management Policies 2006 §§ 4.1, 4.4.3.

This potential for conflict was recognized by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources prior to the passage of ANILCA, when the Committee stated that “[i]t is contrary to the National Park Service concept to manipulate habitat or populations to achieve maximum utilization of natural resources. Rather, the National Park System concept requires implementation of management policies which strive to maintain natural abundance, behavior, diversity and ecological integrity of native animals as part of their ecosystem, and that concept should be maintained.” Senate Report, at page 171.

In the last several years, the State of Alaska has allowed an increasing number of liberalized methods of hunting and trapping wildlife and extended seasons to increase opportunities to harvest predator species. Predator harvest practices recently authorized on lands in the State, including lands in several national preserves, include:

• Taking any black bear, including cubs and sows with cubs, with artificial light at den sites;

• harvesting brown bears over bait (which often includes dog food, bacon/meat grease, donuts, and other human food sources); and

• taking wolves and coyotes (including pups) during the denning season when their pelts have little trophy, economic, or subsistence value.

These practices are not consistent with the NPS's implementation of ANILCA's authorization of sport hunting and trapping in national preserves. To the extent such practices are intended or reasonably likely to manipulate wildlife populations for harvest purposes or alter natural wildlife behaviors, they are not consistent with NPS management policies implementing the NPS Organic Act or the sections of ANILCA that established the national preserves in Alaska. Additional liberalizations by the State that are inconsistent with NPS management directives, policies, and federal law are anticipated in the future.

16 U.S.C. 3201 of ANILCA provides “within national preserves the Secretary may designate zones where and periods when no hunting, fishing, trapping, or entry may be permitted for reasons of public safety, administration, floral and faunal protection, or public use and enjoyment.” In order to comply with federal law and NPS policy, the NPS has adopted temporary restrictions under 36 CFR 13.40(e) to prevent the application of the above listed predator harvest practices to national preserves in Alaska (see, e.g., 2013 Superintendent's Compendium for Denali National Park and Preserve). These restrictions protect fauna and provide for public use and enjoyment consistent with ANILCA. While the NPS prefers a State solution to these conflicts, the State has been mostly unwilling to accommodate the different management directives for NPS areas. In the last ten years, the NPS has objected to more than fifty proposals to liberalize predator harvest in areas that included national preserves, and each time the BOG has been unwilling to exclude national preserves from State regulations designed to manipulate predator/prey dynamics for human consumptive use goals.

In deciding not to treat NPS lands differently from State and other lands, the BOG suggested the NPS was responsible for ensuring that taking wildlife complies with federal laws and policies applicable to NPS areas, and that the NPS could use its own authority to ensure national preserves are managed in a manner consistent with federal law and NPS policy. See, e.g., Statement of BOG Chairman Judkins to Superintendent Dudgeon, BOG Public Meeting in Fairbanks, Alaska (February 27, 2010) (NPS was testifying in opposition to allowing the take of black bear cubs and sows with cubs with artificial light in national preserves). In the absence of State action excluding national preserves, this rulemaking is required to make the temporary restrictions permanent. 36 CFR 13.50(d). This rule responds to the BOG's suggestion by promulgating NPS regulations to ensure national preserves are managed consistent with federal law and policy and prevent historically prohibited sport hunting practices from being authorized in national preserves.

The scope of this rule is limited—sport hunting and trapping are still allowed throughout national preserves and the vast majority of State hunting regulations are consistent with federal law and policy and continue to apply in national preserves. This rule only restricts sport hunting and trapping in national preserves, which constitute less than six percent of the lands in Alaska open to hunting. This rule does not limit the taking of wildlife for Title VIII subsistence uses under the federal subsistence regulations.

The rule separates regulations that govern the taking of fish and the taking of wildlife into two sections: 13.40 and 13.42, respectively. The rule makes the following substantive changes to existing NPS regulations:

(1) In accordance with NPS policies, taking wildlife, hunting or trapping activities, or management actions involving predator reduction efforts with the intent or potential to alter or manipulate natural predator-prey dynamics and associated natural ecological processes to increase harvest of ungulates by humans are not allowed on NPS-managed lands. It also explains how the NPS will notify the public of specific activities that are not consistent with this section.

(2) Affirms current State prohibitions on harvest practices by adopting them as federal regulation, and also maintains historical prohibitions on certain practices that the State has recently authorized for sport hunting of predators: (i) Taking any black bear, including cubs and sows with cubs, with artificial light at den sites; (ii) taking brown bears over bait; and (iii) taking wolves and coyotes during the denning season. The rule also eliminates exceptions to practices generally prohibited under State of Alaska law, thereby prohibiting: Taking caribou that are swimming, or from a motorboat that is under power, in two game management units (GMU); baiting black bears; and using dogs to hunt black bears.

(3) Prohibits intentionally obstructing or hindering persons actively engaged in lawful hunting or trapping.

(4) Updates and simplifies procedures for implementing closures or restrictions in park areas, including taking fish and wildlife for sport purposes.

(5) Updates NPS regulations to reflect federal assumption of the management of subsistence hunting and fishing under Title VIII of ANILCA from the State in the 1990s.

(6) Allows the use of native species as bait, commonly salmon eggs, for fishing in accordance with applicable federal and non-conflicting State law. This supersedes for park areas in Alaska the National Park System-wide prohibition on using certain types of bait in 36 CFR 2.3(d)(2).

Activities or management actions involving predator reduction efforts with the intent or potential to alter or manipulate natural ecosystems or processes (including natural predator/prey dynamics, distributions, densities, age-class distributions, populations, genetics, or behavior of a species) are inconsistent with the laws and policies applicable to NPS areas. The rule clarifies in regulation that these activities are not allowed on NPS lands in Alaska. Under this rule, the Regional Director will compile a list updated at least annually of activities prohibited by this section of the rule. Notice will be provided in accordance with 36 CFR 13.50(f) of this rule.

The rule codifies for national preserves current State prohibitions on harvest practices, and also maintains historical prohibitions on certain sport hunting practices that have been recently authorized by the State for taking predators. It also eliminates exceptions (as applied to national preserves) under State laws that authorize sport hunters to take swimming caribou, to take caribou from motorboats under power, to take black bears over bait, and to use dogs to hunt black bears. The elements of the rule that are described in this paragraph will not be implemented until January 1, 2016, to avoid any potential confusion that may arise from issuing this rule during the 2015 hunting seasons. Delaying the implementation of these provisions will give the general public and other stakeholders sufficient time to understand the new rules before the 2016 hunting seasons begin.

The rule prohibits the intentional obstruction or hindrance of another person's lawful hunting or trapping activities. This includes (i) placing oneself in a location in which human presence may alter the behavior of the game that another person is attempting to take or alter the imminent feasibility of taking game by another person; or (ii) creating a visual, aural, olfactory, or physical stimulus in order to alter the behavior of the game that another person is attempting to take. These actions are prohibited by State law, but this law is not adopted under the regulations for national preserves, because it does not directly regulate hunting and trapping. This rule directly codifies these prohibitions into the NPS regulations, to prevent the frustration of lawful hunting and trapping in national preserves.

The rule updates and simplies the procedures for implementing closures and restrictions on certain activities in NPS areas in Alaska. These changes will make the procedures in Alaska more consistent with other NPS units outside of Alaska and with Alaska State Parks. The rule clarifies that Superintendents must use the procedures in § 13.50 to implement any closure or restriction in NPS areas in Alaska. This eliminates potential confusion about whether the procedures in § 13.50 apply only when they are referenced in a separate regulation in part 13 (currently found in the regulations for weapons, camping, and taking fish and wildlife), or whether they apply to all closures and restrictions in Alaska.

The rule requires rulemaking for nonemergency closures or restrictions if the closures or restrictions (or the termination or relaxation of them) are of a nature, magnitude and duration that will result in a significant alteration in the public use pattern of the area, adversely affect the area's natural, aesthetic, scenic or cultural values, or require a long-term or significant modification in the resource management objectives of the area. These rulemaking criteria are modeled after the the criteria that apply to closures and restrictions in Alaska State Parks (11 AAC 12.335), which are also similar to the criteria in 36 CFR 1.5(b) that apply to NPS areas outside of Alaska. Emergency closures and restrictions are limited to the duration of the emergency.

Before a nonemergency closure or restriction can be implemented, the NPS must issue a written determination explaining the basis of the closure or restriction. The NPS will also compile in writing a list, updated annually, of all closures and restrictions (i.e., the compendium). The compendium and the written determinations of need will be posted on the NPS Web site and made available at park headquarters.

With respect to nonemergency restrictions on taking of fish and wildlife in national preserves, the final rule requires an opportunity for public comment, including a public meeting near the affected NPS unit, before the action is taken. This rule recognizes that, although the internet has become an effective method of communicating with the public, in-person public meetings may still be the most effective way to engage Alaskans, particularly those in rural areas. The rule also requires the NPS to consult with the State prior to adopting such closures and restrictions. Emergency closures or restrictions on the taking of fish or wildlife are limited to 60 days and may only be extended after consultation with the State and an opportunity for public comment, including a public meeting, near the affected NPS unit.

The following table summarizes the changes from the proposed rule regarding procedures to implement closures or restrictions in § 13.50:

The rule updates the subsistence provisions in NPS regulations (36 CFR 13.470, 13.480, and 13.490) to reflect the federal government's assumption of the management and regulation of subsistence take of fish and wildlife under ANILCA and the transfer of subsistence management under Title VIII from the State to the Federal Subsistence Board. The rule makes other non-substantive, editorial changes to the language in 36 CFR 13.490 to streamline, clarify, and better organize this section.

NPS regulations generally prohibit the use of many forms of bait for fishing to help protect against the spread of nonnative species. Fish eggs from native species (usually salmon), are commonly used for fishing in Alaska. This rule allows the use of local native species as bait for fishing.

This section explains some of the principal elements of the rule in a question and answer format.

The rule responds to State hunting regulations that authorize wildlife harvest practices that conflict with ANILCA's authorization for sport hunting, the statutory purposes for which national preserves were established, and the NPS Organic Act as implemented by the NPS. These include liberalized predator harvest seasons, bear baiting, and the harvest of caribou while swimming. National park areas are managed for natural ecosystems and processes, including wildlife populations. The NPS legal and policy framework prohibits reducing native predators for the purpose of increasing numbers of harvested species.

As discussed above, the rule also responds to a number of other regulatory needs, by updating and streamlining closure procedures, updating subsistence provisions to reflect the program's actual management, prohibiting interference with lawful hunting consistent with State law, and allowing use of native species as bait for fishing.

No.

No. This rule restricts certain methods of harvest currently allowed on national preserves by the State of Alaska under its general hunting regulations. These include the taking of any black bear, including cubs and sows with cubs, with artificial light at den sites, taking brown and black bears over bait, taking wolves and coyotes between May 1 and August 9, harvest of swimming caribou or taking caribou from a motorboat while under power, and using dogs to hunt black bears. Additionally, State laws or regulations involving predator reduction efforts with the intent or potential to alter or manipulate natural predator-prey dynamics and associated natural ecological processes to increase harvest of ungulates by humans will not apply in national preserves, pursuant to this rule. These restrictions will affect a very small percentage of hunting practices authorized by State regulation and less than six percent of the lands in Alaska that are open to hunting.

Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) applies to sport hunting and trapping in national preserves. State harvest laws and regulations (Alaska Statute Title 16 and Alaska Administrative Code Title 5 AAC) that are consistent with 36 CFR also apply on national preserves. ANILCA Title VIII subsistence harvest of fish and wildlife by Federally-qualified rural residents is authorized in national preserves in Alaska under 36 CFR part 13 and 50 CFR part 100. Please contact the park chief ranger for additional information or assistance.

Yes. State hunting regulations apply to national preserves except when in conflict with federal regulation. Please contact the park chief ranger for additional information or assistance.

Yes. Consistent with NPS Management Policies 2006, the NPS Organic Act, and the statutory purposes for which national preserves were established, this rule prohibits predator reduction activities on national preserves that have the intent or potential to alter or manipulate natural predator-prey dynamics and associated natural ecological processes to increase harvest of ungulates by humans.

The NPS Organic Act authorizes the NPS to promulgate regulations that are necessary and proper for the use and management of National Park System units, including national preserves in Alaska, for the purpose of conserving the wild life and providing for the enjoyment of the wild life in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. 54 U.S.C. 100101(a) and 100751. ANILCA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the NPS, to promulgate regulations prescribing restrictions relating to hunting, fishing, or trapping for reasons of public safety, administration, floral and faunal protection, or public use and enjoyment. 16 U.S.C. 3201 and 3202.

The Regional Director will compile a list updated at least annually of State laws and regulations that are not adopted in national preserves. This list will be posted at www.nps.gov and available upon request at NPS park headquarters.

Title VIII of ANILCA limits subsistence activities to local rural residents. This rule does not restrict federally-qualified subsistence users who are hunting in accordance with federal subsistence regulations. But those persons living in nonrural areas (who therefore are not federally-qualified subsistence users) must comply with the restrictions in this rule. For example, only federally qualified subsistence users hunting under federal subsistence regulations will be able to take swimming caribou within national preserves, for all others this practice will now be prohibited in national preserves.

Hunting in national preserves is different than on State (or private) lands because NPS regulations also apply and govern in the event of a conflict with State law or regulation. However, harvest opportunities and practices in national preserves vary little from practices allowed under State law, except for some very specific circumstances for which where the NPS has issued regulations. For example, same-day airborne hunting of big game animals, arctic fox, red fox, and lynx has not been allowed on NPS lands since 1995. This rule adds several additional NPS regulations prohibiting the following harvest practices that are allowed under State law: (1) Taking any black bear, including cubs and sows with cubs, with artificial light at den sites, (2) taking brown bears and black bears over bait, (3) taking wolves and coyotes from May 1 through August 9, (4) harvest of swimming caribou and harvest of caribou from a moving motorboat by those other than local rural residents in those portions of Noatak, Gates of the Arctic, and Bering Land Bridge Preserves that are within GMUs 23 and 26, and (5) using dogs to hunt black bears.

The NPS proposed prohibiting the harvest of brown bears over bait to avoid public safety issues, to avoid food-conditioning bears and other species, and to maintain natural bear behavior as required by NPS law and policy. Other land and wildlife management agencies strive to eliminate the feeding of bears through individual and collective educational efforts due to the increased likelihood that food-conditioned bears will be killed by agency personnel or the public in defense of life or property. Food-conditioned bears are also believed more likely to cause human injury. Baiting tends to occur in accessible areas used by multiple user groups, which contributes to the public safety concerns associated with baiting. The concerns presented with taking brown bears over bait also apply to black bear baiting. After reviewing public comment, the final rule prohibits taking both black bears and brown bears over bait in national preserves.

Taking swimming big game is already generally prohibited by State law, but there are exceptions in State law for the take of swimming caribou in GMUs 23 and 26, which include portions of Noatak, Bering Land Bridge, and Gates of the Arctic National Preserves. This method of harvest remains available to federally qualified subsistence users in their pursuit of food. However, as is further explained below, this method is one of those that NPS has found is not consistent with ANILCA's authorization for sport hunting in national preserves.

Yes. This rule allows federally qualified subsistence users to use native species as bait for fishing in accordance with federal subsistence regulations. Others will also be able to use native species for bait when such use is in accordance with non-conflicting State fishing regulations.

The procedures in 36 CFR 13.50 apply to all closures and restrictions in NPS units in Alaska, unless there are more specific procedures stated elsewhere in law or regulation. For example, the following regulations have specific procedures:

• Unattended or abandoned property, 36 CFR 13.45

• Use of snowmobiles, motorboats, dog teams, and other means of surface transportation traditionally employed by local rural residents engaged in subsistence uses, 36 CFR 13.460

• Subsistence use of timber and plant material, 36 CFR 13.485

• Closure to subsistence uses of fish and wildlife, 36 CFR 13.490

Any nonemergency closure or restriction, or the termination or relaxation of such, which is of a nature, magnitude, and duration that will result in a significant alteration in the public use pattern of the area; adversely affect the area's natural, aesthetic, scenic, or cultural values; or require a long-term modification in the resource management objectives of the area.

Public hearings near the affected vicinity are required before restricting: (1) Subsistence harvest of fish or wildlife under Title VIII of ANILCA or (2) access authorized under 16 U.S.C. 3170 (a) of ANILCA. There is no statutory requirement for a public hearing for other types of closures or restrictions.

The proposed rule included a requirement to provide an opportunity for public comment on potential restrictions to taking fish or wildlife. Public comment may include written comments, a public meeting, a public hearing, or a combination thereof. Based upon public comment and to be more consistent with the practices of the BOG and the Federal Subsistence Board, the NPS modified the proposed rule to provide that the opportunity for comment must include at least one public meeting near the affected NPS unit in nonemergency situations. This is a change from the existing regulations, which require a public hearing. Requiring a “meeting” instead of a “hearing” provides more flexibility on how the event is structured. During the public hearings conducted in 2014, the NPS received feedback that some local communities prefer a less formal approach and more opportunities for dialog with NPS managers. The NPS believes the term “meeting” more appropriately describes this type of informational exchange. The NPS also believes the term public meeting is broad enough to include a public hearing if that is more appropriate for the area.

Information about closures and restrictions is posted on each park's Web site at www.nps.gov. This information is also available upon request at NPS park headquarters.

The NPS deleted the provisions adopting non-conflicting State law because the State no longer manages subsistence harvest under Title VIII of ANILCA. Subsistence harvest of fish and wildlife on federal public lands is generally regulated by the Federal Subsistence Board.

Yes, except in the case of emergencies.

Yes, the NPS is required to consult with tribes if an NPS action would have a substantial direct effect on federally recognized Indian tribes. Consultation with ANCSA Native Corporations is required if an NPS action would have a substantial direct effect on ANCSA Native Corporation lands, waters, or interests.

While this kind of consultation is not required by law, the NPS regards the input from these advisory and other groups as invaluable. The NPS encourages these groups to engage with park managers on topics of interest. The NPS also invites and encourages these committees and groups to provide input on decisions affecting public use of NPS managed lands as outlined in this final rule.

A summary of substantive comments and NPS responses is provided below followed by a table that sets out changes we have made to the proposed rule based on the analysis of the comments and other considerations.

1. Comment: Some commenters stated the NPS did not adequately consult with the State of Alaska prior to publishing the proposed rule and in doing so, acted inconsistently with ANILCA, the Master Memorandum of Understanding between the NPS and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), and Executive Order 12866.

NPS Response: The NPS respects its responsibility to consult with the State (and others) regarding NPS actions, especially given that wildlife management in NPS units is a responsibility that is shared between the NPS and the State. Publication of the proposed rule provided an opportunity for consultation between the NPS and the State. The NPS and the ADF&G met shortly after the publication of the proposed rule, which is consistent with ANILCA's consultation requirement. 16 U.S.C. 3201. The NPS has engaged in ongoing communications with the ADF&G, the BOG, the State of Alaska ANILCA Implementation Program, and the State of Alaska Citizen's Advisory Commission on Federal Areas for a number of years regarding the issues that this rule addresses.

Executive Order 12866 requires federal agencies to “seek views of appropriate State, local, and tribal governments before imposing regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect those governmental entities.” Sec. 1(b)(9). As discussed below, the Office of Management and Budget determined this rule is not a significant regulatory action subject to this requirement. Regardless, the NPS invited the views of State, local, and tribal governments before publishing this final rule, and also complied with its responsibilities under section 4 of the Executive Order by including the proposed rule in the Unified Regulatory Agenda that was published by the Office of Management and Budget on reginfo.gov.

The NPS signed and implemented the Master Memorandum of Understanding (MMOU) with the ADF&G in 1982. The MMOU states that the ADF&G will manage wildlife on NPS managed lands for natural species diversity and natural process. The NPS agreed to recognize ADF&G as having the primary responsibility to manage wildlife on lands in the State and utilize the State's regulatory process to the maximum extent possible. Both agencies agreed to coordinate planning to minimize conflicts from differing legal mandates and consult with each other when developing regulations. The NPS continues to recognize the State as having primary responsibility to manage fish and wildlife on lands in the State. However, the State's responsibility is not exclusive and it does not preclude federal regulation of wildlife on federal public lands, as is well-established in the courts and specifically stated in ANILCA. The NPS also attempted to utilize the State regulatory process to notify the BOG when proposals created a conflict with NPS laws, regulations, and policies, years before the publication of the proposed rule. During this time NPS requested that the conflicts be resolved, as a first resort, through the State regulatory process. Only after conflicts could not be resolved through that process, and the BOG suggested the NPS could use its own authority to meet is mandates for managing wildlife, did the NPS consider modifications to federal regulations to resolve the conflicts.

2. Comment: Some commenters stated that the NPS did not adequately consult with tribes, various advisory committees, and rural residents prior to publishing the proposed rule.

NPS Response: NPS has an obligation to consult with tribes prior to making a decision that would have a substantial direct effect on federally-recognized tribes. Even though the NPS determined that the proposed rule would not have a substantial direct effect on tribes, the NPS initiated consultation shortly after publication of the proposed rule. The NPS emailed a letter to tribes inviting them to consult and notifying them of two statewide conference calls dedicated to tribal consultation in the fall of 2014. No one provided comments or asked questions during the first call. On the second call, four individuals who serve as members of tribal councils provided comments. Park managers also contacted tribes with ties to the park areas by phone, email, and letter to invite them to consult. NPS met in person with three tribes that requested additional consultation. The NPS also provided information to affected Subsistence Resource Commissions and Regional Advisory Councils beginning when the first temporary wildlife harvest restrictions were considered in 2010, and provided periodic updates throughout the process. Since these harvest restrictions were first proposed, the NPS stated its intention to initiate rulemaking and solicited public comment on these provisions. After the proposed rule was published, the NPS provided 121 days for written comment, met with and provided information to multiple groups, and held an additional 26 public hearings across the State, in rural locations near affected units as well as Anchorage, Fairbanks, Palmer, and Soldotna.

3. Comment: Some commenters stated the NPS did not respond to comments and questions from the State of Alaska on the temporary wildlife harvest restrictions that were included in the proposed rule, which might have enabled the State to take action that would make the proposed harvest restrictions unnecessary. Commenters also suggested the NPS work with the State of Alaska collaboratively to address the wildlife harvest issues in this rule.

NPS Response: The NPS would have preferred a collaborative approach with a solution in State law or regulation rather than federal regulation. To that end, the NPS has testified before the Board of Game many times, requested the Board of Game take specific regulatory action to address NPS concerns, met with ADF&G, provided explanations for the restrictions in writing, and responded to comments in the annual park compendiums. The NPS acknowledges the State requested scientific data to support the temporary restrictions on taking black bears, including cubs and sows with cubs, with artificial light at den sites, taking brown bears over bait, and prohibiting the take of wolves and coyotes during the summer months. However, neither the temporary restrictions nor this rule are based on particular wildlife population levels, and do not require the preparation of such scientific data. The basis of the compendium provisions, as well as the rule, is the NPS legal and policy framework, which has been communicated verbally and in writing several times.

4. Comment: Several comments stated that the NPS should give more weight to comments on the proposed rule from Alaskans than other members of the public. Another comment urged the NPS to increase cooperation and dialogue with rural Alaskans. Others expressed concern that the NPS is not considering public comments when developing the final rule, and did not adequately respond to public comments delivered at public meetings.

NPS Response: The NPS agrees that it will continue to strive to increase cooperation and dialogue with rural Alaskans, many of whom live near the national preserves and may be affected by this rule. After consideration of public comments on the proposed rule, the NPS has included a provision in the final rule requiring it hold one or more public meetings near the affected NPS unit before implementing any non-emergency closure or restriction on the sport take of fish or wildlife in national preserves.

During the comment periods for the proposed rule, the NPS held 26 public hearings in Alaska in an effort to solicit the opinions and comments of Alaskans. The NPS has considered all relevant comments it received on the proposed rule, including those from rural Alaskans and those delivered at public meetings. The NPS considers each comment based upon its substantive content, and does not give greater weight to any comment based upon the residence of the commenter. This is also consistent with the statutory purpose for establishing the national preserves in Alaska for the benefit, use, education, and inspiration of present and future generations of all Americans.

5. Comment: Some comments stated that the NPS did not provide the public with sufficient time to review and comment on the proposed rule. Other comments felt that the NPS should not be allowed to make changes to the proposed rule without allowing the public to review and comment on those changes.

NPS Response: The policy of the U.S. Department of the Interior is ordinarily to provide at least 60 days for public comment on any proposed rule that is published in the Federal Register. Due to the anticipated interest in this rule, the NPS provided an initial comment period of 90 days so that the public would have additional time to consider the proposal and submit timely comments. After the initial 90-day comment period expired, the NPS received several requests to reopen the comment period to give the public more time to review and prepare comments. Acknowledging the interest in this rule, the NPS agreed with these requests and reopened the comment period for an additional 31 days. In total, the NPS provided the public with 121 days to review and comment on the proposed rule, and appreciates the thoughtful consideration and responses it received. The NPS believes that the length of the combined public comment period was adequate and does not intend to reopen, for a second time, the public comment period.

After considering public comments and after additional review, the NPS made certain changes to the proposed rule, which are described in the section below entitled “Changes from the Proposed Rule.” The changes are a logical outgrowth of the proposed rule, and were reasonably foreseeable by the public when the proposed rule was published. For example, the NPS specifically requested comment on taking black bears over bait in the proposed rule. This notified the public that the proposed rule could change with respect to this issue after consideration of public comment. Other changes to the proposed rule, such as requiring a public meeting before adopting a closure or restriction for taking wildlife, are consistent with the existing regulations at 36 CFR 13.50.

6. Comment: Some commenters stated that NPS does not have the authority to supersede State wildlife regulations, while others requested the NPS clarify its authority to preempt conflicting State regulations under the Property and Supremacy Clauses of the Constitution.

NPS Response: Under the Property and Supremacy Clauses of the U.S. Constitution, State wildlife laws that conflict with NPS's efforts to carry out its statutory mandate are preempted. See, e.g. Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529 (1976); Hunt v. United States, 278 U.S. 96 (1928); New Mexico State Game Comm'n v. Udall, 410 F.2d 1197 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, New Mexico State Game Comm'n v. Hickel, 396 U.S. 961 (1969); United States v. Brown, 552 F.2d 817 (8th Cir. 1977). Certain State-authorized hunting and trapping practices are not consistent with the NPS implementation of the NPS Organic Act and ANILCA. Consequently, the final rule is an appropriate exercise of the authority affirmed by the cases cited above.

7. Comment: Several commenters questioned how any take of wildlife on national preserve lands is permissible when regulations that may “alter the natural predator/prey dynamics, distribution, densities, age-class distributions, populations, genetics or behavior of a species” are interpreted as being incompatible with the laws and policies of the National Park Service.

NPS Response: ANILCA provides for harvest of wildlife in national preserves. Therefore some level of take is appropriate and compatible with the NPS legal and policy framework for Alaska national preserves. This rule does not prohibit all State-authorized hunting and trapping. The vast majority of State regulations are, and are expected to remain, compatible with the NPS management framework. Over the past several decades, only a handful of State regulations have been superseded by NPS regulations.

The NPS believes that the standard in the rule is a workable and limited standard that satisfies our legal and policy framework and does not include all actions that result in the harvest of wildlife. This rule provides that the NPS does not adopt State management actions or laws or regulations that authorize taking of wildlife, which are related to predator reduction efforts, meaning that they have the intent or potential to alter or manipulate natural predator-prey dynamics and associated natural ecological processes, in order to increase harvest of ungulates by humans. The NPS acknowledges that the public would benefit from greater clarity as to exactly which State laws and regulations are not adopted by the NPS. As a result, the rule requires the Regional Director to publish at least annually a list of all such laws and regulations not adopted in national preserves.

8. Comment: Some commenters objected to the NPS description that some of the harvest practices, such as taking swimming caribou and hunting caribou from a motorboat while under power, are “longstanding prohibited.”

NPS Response: The harvest methods prohibited by this rule stem from general hunting and trapping restrictions in State law and regulation, some of which have been relaxed in recent years in response to proposals to the BOG. Some of these proposals to relax hunting and trapping restrictions were adopted in whole or in part to reduce predators. Three of these proposals removed longstanding prohibitions on harvest methods. In response, the NPS prohibited these methods on a temporary basis: (1) Taking any black bear, including cubs and sows with cubs, with artificial light at den sites; (2) taking brown bears over bait; and (3) taking wolves and coyotes during the summer months. This rule makes the temporary restrictions permanent. This rule also prohibits some additional practices that the NPS acknowledges were not historically prohibited. These practices, however, existed only as exceptions to general prohibitions in State law: (1) Taking swimming caribou or taking caribou from a motorboat while under power, in GMUs 23 and 26; (2) black bear baiting; and (3) using dogs to hunt black bears. For the reasons explained herein, NPS believes these practices should also now be prohibited in national preserves.

9. Comment: Some comments stated that the hunting methods that would be prohibited by the proposed rule were not intended to reduce predators but were allowed by the BOG based on requests from the Alaskans for additional harvest opportunity or to authorize traditional practices. Other comments stated the NPS proposed rule would prefer predators over ungulates. Others supported the proposed rule because it would prohibit harvest practices designed to reduce predators, which is inconsistent with NPS laws.

NPS Response: The NPS acknowledges many of the harvest practices recently authorized by the State were based in whole or in part on proposals from Alaskan hunters, some of whom may also be federally-qualified subsistence users. However, the record shows some of these proposals and the decisions to act on them were based wholly or in part on a desire to reduce predator populations, and often far in excess of any previous authorizations. Before the BOG authorized taking cubs and sows with cubs at den sites, it had only allowed this activity as part of a predator control program. (Findings of the Alaska Board of Game 2012-194-BOG, Board of Game Bear Conservation, Harvest, and Management Policy, expiration June 30, 2016 (January 18, 2012)). The State's decision to expand wolf and coyote seasons was based in part on a desire to elevate survival rates of moose and caribou calves.

As explained in the background section of this rule, NPS management policies prohibit the manipulation of wildlife populations, and require the NPS to protect natural abundances, distributions, densities, and populations of wildlife. This rule does not favor predators over ungulates, which would also violate NPS management policies. The rule is primarily focused on the take of predators because the allowances implemented by the State target predators, not ungulates. Even in these circumstances, the rule is consistent with NPS policy to allow for the fluctuation of natural populations of all species in national preserves, by prohibiting the purposeful decrease of predator populations to achieve (or attempt) an increase of ungulate populations to benefit hunters.

10. Comment: One commenter stated the NPS misinterpreted the State sustained yield mandate in the proposed rule and requested the NPS clarify the State's statutory definition to make it clear the State has authority to manage for a variety of beneficial uses of wildlife rather than only to support a high level of human harvest of wildlife.

NPS Response: NPS acknowledges that the State may have broader authorities and goals, but in general, interpretation and clarification of State law is a matter for the State. This rule ensures that taking of wildlife in national preserves is consistent with federal laws and NPS policies that require the NPS to manage national preserves for natural processes.

11. Comment: Several commenters directly or indirectly commented on State-authorized subsistence harvest of fish and wildlife. Some commenters suggested ANILCA authorizes State subsistence separate from Title VIII subsistence. Some comments stated the proposed rule restricts subsistence uses by Alaska Natives. Some commenters stated that federally qualified subsistence users often prefer to harvest wildlife under State regulations because the State regulations are more liberal than federal subsistence regulations and the Federal Subsistence Board regulatory process is cumbersome and takes too long. Conversely, some subsistence hunters voiced support for the proposed regulations as they do not consider some of the methods prohibited by this rule to be traditional or consistent with natural processes and population dynamics.

NPS Response: ANILCA, 16 U.S.C. 3201, states that national preserves shall be managed “in the same manner as a national park . . . except that the taking of fish and wildlife for sport purposes and subsistence uses, and trapping shall be allowed in a national preserve[.]” Under ANILCA and in this rule, the term “subsistence” refers only to subsistence activities authorized by Title VIII of ANILCA, which must comply with the federal subsistence regulations (among other things, they are restricted to rural Alaska residents). ANILCA did not authorize any separate State subsistence activities. Take of wildlife is authorized in national preserves only to the extent it is consistent with either the federal subsistence regulations or with regulations applicable to taking of wildlife for “sport purposes.”

The NPS acknowledges that some rural residents eligible to harvest wildlife under federal subsistence regulations in NPS units also harvest wildlife under State regulations in national preserves, particularly when the State methods, seasons, and bag limits are more liberal. To the extent that this harvest does not conflict with NPS regulations applicable to sport hunting, these opportunities are preserved. Any changes to federal subsistence regulations should be proposed to the Federal Subsistence Board.

12. Comment: Some commenters objected to the use of the term “sport hunting” in the proposed rule as offensive and inaccurate in certain cases such as when a federal subsistence user moves out of the area and is no longer eligible to harvest under federal subsistence regulations.

NPS Response: The NPS understands that some hunters who harvest wildlife under State regulations are not hunting for recreation or “sport.” Sometimes individuals who are harvesting under State regulations were once rural residents but are no longer federally qualified subsistence users. However, Congress used the term “sport purposes” in ANILCA and it would be inappropriate for the NPS to allow harvest that is neither for “subsistence purposes” nor for “sport purposes” under 16 U.S.C. 3201.

13. Comment: Some commenters supported the prohibition on the methods of take in the proposed rule because they are unsporting or unethical; others stated the NPS should not regulate ethics regarding wildlife harvest.

NPS Response: Although the term “sport” is not defined in ANILCA, each term in a statute is presumed to have meaning. Sportsmanship in hunting has more than a hundred years of tradition and meaning in the conservation movement in America. See John F. Reiger, American Sportsmen and the Origin of Conservation (Winchester Press 1975). When methods of harvest go beyond traditionally accepted norms of “sport” in hunting, they may fall outside of what Congress intended when it authorized hunting in statutes like ANILCA. In some such cases, NPS believes regulations may be needed to curtail these activities that were never intended to occur in units of the National Park System. Such situations historically have been rare. Except for the prohibition of same-day airborne hunting in 1995, the NPS has not restricted the practices authorized by the State through federal rulemaking published in the CFR. There has, however, been a departure in recent years by the BOG, which has sought to advance the goals of increasing harvested species by targeting predators. In order to comply with federal law and NPS policy, these recent allowances have been prohibited by the NPS in national preserves on a temporary basis through compendium actions, and are now permanently prohibited by this rule.

The NPS also recognizes that some practices that are being prohibited for “sport” hunters may be appropriate for subsistence users. An example of this is taking swimming caribou. On NPS lands, the take of swimming caribou for subsistence is allowed in accordance with federal subsistence regulations, but it is not appropriate as a “sport” hunting practice on waters within national preserves.

14. Comment: Some commenters stated the proposed rule would prohibit Alaska residents from participating in State subsistence fisheries.

NPS Response: This rule makes no changes to fishing regulations other than allowing the use of native species as bait for fishing. Fishing in NPS units under federal subsistence regulations must be in accordance with 36 CFR 13.470 and 50 CFR part 100. Other noncommercial fishing is authorized under 36 CFR 13.40 and in accordance with the provisions of 36 CFR 2.3. To the extent it is consistent with those regulations, State-authorized subsistence fishing is allowed within NPS units.

15. Comment: Some commenters asserted that NPS does not have authority to enact the proposed regulations and that the NPS actions are inconsistent with 16 U.S.C. 3114 and 16 U.S.C. 3125(3) of ANILCA.

NPS Response: This final rule is not promulgated under 16 U.S.C. 3114, which provides that subsistence take of fish and wildlife has priority over other uses when it is necessary to restrict the harvest of fish or wildlife to protect the viability of the population or to continue subsistence uses. The restrictions in this rule are not necessary to protect the viability of a population or to continue Title VIII subsistence uses, nor do they affect subsistence uses or priority. The NPS is promulgating this rule under the NPS Organic Act and 16 U.S.C. 3201, which provide NPS with authority to restrict the taking of wildlife for sport purposes in national preserves for reasons of public safety, administration, floral and faunal protection, or public use and enjoyment.

Similarly, 16 U.S.C. 3125(3) does not apply to this rule. That provision provides that “[n]othing in this title shall be construed as . . . authorizing a restriction on the taking of fish and wildlife for nonsubsistence uses . . . unless necessary for the conservation of healthy populations of fish and wildlife . . . to continue subsistence uses of such populations [.]” The phrase “this title” refers solely to Title VIII of ANILCA—this section does not apply to 16 U.S.C. 3201, which was enacted as part of Title XIII. This section thus does not preclude the NPS from authorizing restrictions under other titles in ANILCA (such as Title XIII) or other federal laws (such as the NPS Organic Act), as is the case here.

16. Comment: Some commenters stated the NPS should limit hunting to traditional harvest methods because current technology could result in overharvest. Commenters also stated that resources should be allocated to most local users when harvest must be reduced.

NPS Response: In consultation with the State and the Federal Subsistence Board, the NPS will consider restrictions on specific harvest practices on a case by case basis. In times of shortage ANILCA, 16 U.S.C. 3114, provides priority to local subsistence users over others.

17. Comment: Some commenters objected to the statement in the proposed rule that management of wildlife on national preserves must protect natural processes, because ANILCA calls for “healthy” populations, not “natural” populations.

NPS Response: Title VIII of ANILCA refers to conserving “healthy” populations of wildlife on federal public lands in Alaska. ANILCA also states that nothing in the statute modifies or repeals any federal law governing the conservation or protection of fish and wildlife. The statute explicitly identifies the NPS Organic Act as one of those federal laws. The NPS Organic Act requires the NPS to conserve the wild life in units of the National Park System (including national preserves) and to provide for visitor enjoyment of the wild life for this and future generations. 54 U.S.C. 100101. Policies implementing the NPS Organic Act require the NPS to protect natural ecosystems and processes, including the natural abundances, diversities, distributions, densities, age-class distributions, populations, habitats, genetics, and behaviors of wildlife. NPS Management Policies 2006 §§ 4.1, 4.4.1, 4.4.1.2, 4.4.2. The legislative history of ANILCA reflects that Congress did not intend to modify the NPS Organic Act in this respect: “the Committee recognizes that the policies and legal authorities of the managing agencies will determine the nature and degree of management programs affecting ecological relationships, population's dynamics, and manipulations of the components of the ecosystem.” Senate Report 96-413, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources at pages 232-233 (hereafter Senate Report 96-413). This is reflected in the statutory purposes of various national preserves that were established by ANILCA, which include the protection of populations of fish and wildlife.

18. Comment: Some commenters stated the proposed rule includes ambiguous terms and gives too much discretion to park superintendents.

NPS Response: The NPS believes the actions the superintendents are authorized to take in the rule are consistent with federal law and are comparable to the actions superintendents have long been authorized to take in similar circumstances. It also recognizes that superintendents are the subject matter experts regarding management of the park unit and have been delegated responsibility to take action and respond to changing circumstances that may affect the values and resources of a park unit.

19. Comment: Some commenters questioned the basis of the proposed rule because the NPS did not cite or provide evidence or data related to wildlife population-level effects or any conservation concern.

NPS Response: As discussed above, the rule is based on the NPS legal and policy framework, which among other things “requires implementation of management policies which strive to maintain natural abundance, behavior, diversity and ecological integrity of native animals as part of their ecosystem . . . .” Senate Report 96-413, at page 171. This rule is not based on particular wildlife population levels, and did not require the preparation of data on those levels. Rather the rule reflects the NPS responsibility to manage national preserves for natural processes, including predator-prey relationships, and responds to practices that are intended to alter those processes.

20. Comment: A couple of commenters asked for clarification about the harvest opportunities that would be prohibited by the proposed rule on a unit by unit basis.

NPS Response: The NPS believes the rule clearly describes the harvest practices that are prohibited. All but three of these practices are already prohibited by either NPS temporary actions or existing State law. The only currently allowed harvest practices that will be prohibited under this rule are taking caribou that are swimming or taking caribou from a motorboat while under power (currently allowed in portions of Noatak, Gates of the Arctic, and Bering Land Bridge National Preserves), black bear baiting, and using dogs to hunt black bears. The NPS will assist the public to understand the impacts of the rule on sport harvest of wildlife in national preserves. The public and visitors are encouraged to contact or visit the local NPS offices for information or assistance.

21. Comment: One commenter opposed the prohibition on the take of muskrats at pushups, adding that this practice has been authorized by the State since 1967 and that the practice is not known to have caused conservation or user problems.

NPS Response: The proposed rule would have prohibited the take of muskrats at pushups, which is currently authorized under State regulations. This was not the NPS's intent, and the final rule has been modified to allow for this practice.

22. Comment: One commenter stated the allowance in the proposed rule for using electronic calls to take big game (except moose) should be modified to allow electronic calls for all game (except moose).

NPS Response: The NPS agrees with the suggestion, which is consistent with State law. The NPS has modified the rule accordingly.

23. Comment: Some commenters objected to the practice of trapping and snaring generally due to the potential for user conflicts and safety concerns due to traps and snares on or near trails. Some commenters specifically objected to snaring bears. Some commenters said trapping should not be allowed near trails used by others in order to protect those visitors and their pets. Some commenters said trappers should be required to identify their traps with their name and contact information.

NPS Response: ANILCA generally allows for trapping (including snaring) in national preserves. Under this rule and adopted State law, there are restrictions on animals that may be trapped under a trapping license, types of traps, as well as restrictions on locations where traps may be set. Because pets are required to be leashed, traps—even those set near trails—have not been a concern historically. In the event that trapping presents safety concerns, the NPS will address those concerns on a case-by-case basis.

24. Comment: Commenters suggested there is an inconsistency between what is being proposed for NPS lands in Alaska and allowances in some Lower 48 parks, including taking coyotes year-round.

NPS Response: Units of the National Park System are “united through their interrelated purposes and resources into one National Park System,” and managed in a manner “consistent with and founded in the purpose established by” the NPS Organic Act, “to the common benefit of all the people of the United States.” 54 U.S.C. 100101. But units also are managed consistent with their enabling statutes and other laws specifically applicable to those units, such as ANILCA. Hunting of any kind is generally prohibited in units of the National Park System, 36 CFR 2.2, except where specifically authorized by statute, as is the case for national preserves in Alaska (as well as subsistence activities in other Alaska units). In those units that do allow hunting, hunting seasons for particular species generally vary from unit to unit and are often set by State law. When NPS sets seasons or other restrictions by regulation, it does so case by case, based on the resource and management needs of the particular unit.

25. Comment: Some commenters suggested that the rule should prohibit the more subtle means of affecting the natural functioning ecosystem, such as hunters not being required to obtain tags or permits for predators, same-day airborne hunting and trapping, and sale of raw hides and skulls.

NPS Response: Many of the activities described by the commenter are already prohibited under federal regulations. For example, same-day airborne hunting of big game animals, arctic fox, red fox, or lynx is not allowed on NPS lands. Additionally, sale of raw hides and skulls is not allowed under existing NPS regulations. The NPS has not identified a need for NPS-issued tags and permits and consequently has not required harvest permits and tags beyond those required by State regulations and federal subsistence regulations.

26. Comment: One commenter said that while ungulates will probably remain the focus of the State's intensive management program, it is conceivable that another species could become the focus in the future due to fads or economic interests. The commenter suggested that NPS needs the flexibility to include additional species when necessary to provide for naturally functioning ecosystems.

NPS Response: While naturally functioning ecosystems include natural diversity and abundances of native wildlife populations, the NPS does not believe it is necessary to modify the proposed rule to address this concern. Should the issue arise in the future, the NPS will work with the State and consider appropriate action at that time.

27. Comment: One commenter suggested adding “intercepting” wildlife to the list of prohibited actions that cannot be taken by an aircraft, snowmachine, or other motor vehicle. Also, the term “positioning” is used to refer to the practice of using snowmachines for lining caribou up for a shot. It should be clarified whether this practice is considered “herding.”

NPS Response: Paragraph (g)(4) of this rule prohibits using an aircraft, snowmachine, off-road vehicle, motorboat, or other motor vehicle to harass wildlife, including chasing, driving, herding, molesting, or otherwise disturbing wildlife. Using an aircraft, snowmachine, or other motor vehicle to “intercept” or “position” wildlife is prohibited by this provision, because the wildlife would be (among other things) harassed, chased, driven, herded, molested, or otherwise disturbed by the use of the aircraft, snowmachine, or motor vehicle. As a result, the NPS does not believe it is necessary to revise the proposed rule to specifically prohibit “intercepting” or “positioning” wildlife as these activities are already covered by the rule.

28. Comment: Some commenters stated the NPS should also address bag limits for certain species, such as wolves.

NPS Response: The NPS generally believes bag limits are more appropriately addressed through the State regulatory process and Federal Subsistence Program in conjunction with harvest information and population data. Should bag limits become a concern in the future, the NPS will work with the State and the Federal Subsistence Board as appropriate.

29. Comment: Some commenters objected to prohibiting the harvest methods identified in the proposed rule as unnecessary since they duplicate State regulations already in effect or would eliminate harvest opportunities for Alaskans.

NPS Response: The NPS affirms current State prohibitions on harvest methods by codifying them as federal law. Should exceptions to these State prohibitions be made in the future, the NPS will consider whether to adopt the same exceptions for national preserves. The majority of existing harvest opportunities provided under State law will still be available for hunters in national preserves.

30. Comment: Some commenters objected to the provision in the proposed rule requiring the Regional Director to compile an annual list of State laws and regulations that are not adopted in national preserves because they are aimed at reducing predators. Some comments suggested that the NPS hold public hearings and a public comment period before the Regional Director places laws and regulations on this list. Other commenters stated this provision is inconsistent with ANILCA and would give superintendents too much discretionary authority.

NPS Response: The provision requiring the Regional Director to identify State laws and regulations not adopted under paragraph (f) is designed to remove any ambiguity about which State-authorized activities are prohibited on national preserves. The NPS does not believe that a hearing or public comment period is appropriate for the annual list because these activities will be prohibited by paragraph (f)(2) without any further action by the NPS or the Regional Director. The purpose of the list is to inform the public about which laws and regulations are not adopted by the NPS so that there is no confusion about what is allowed in national preserves. The list is expected to change only to the extent the State authorizes new predator reduction activities that otherwise would affect national preserves. The overall goal of this provision is to maintain the traditional status quo and prevent the introduction of new predator reduction activities in national preserves.

ANILCA allows the Secretary of the Interior (acting through the NPS) to restrict sport hunting and trapping in national preserves after consultation with the State of Alaska, and does not diminish the authority of the Secretary of the Interior over the management of public lands. See the Background section of this final rule for more information about NPS authority to promulgate this rule. The NPS believes that compiling and annually updating a list of the activities prohibited by paragraph (f) is consistent with the statutory authority provided to the NPS for the management of national preserves.

31. Comment: Some commenters stated that the practice of baiting black bears and brown bears is appropriate because it will not have adverse ecological or public safety effects. Others commented that baiting black bears and brown bears should be prohibited because it may create public safety issues, food-conditioned bears, or impact natural populations or processes.

NPS Response: The NPS proposed prohibiting the harvest of brown bears over bait to avoid public safety issues, to avoid food conditioning bears and other species, and to maintain natural bear behavior as required by the NPS legal and policy framework. By design, baiting typically uses human or pet food to alter the natural behavior of bears to predictably attract them to a specific location for harvest. Land and wildlife management agencies strive to eliminate the feeding of bears through individual and collective educational efforts, due to the increased likelihood that food-conditioned bears are killed by agency personnel or the public in defense of life or property. Food-conditioned bears are also believed more likely to cause human injury. To that end, NPS regulations prohibit feeding wildlife and the practice of baiting is at odds with this.

Because the concerns presented by taking brown bears over bait also apply to black bear baiting, the NPS requested public comment on whether taking black bears over bait should be allowed to continue on national preserves. After reviewing public comment, the NPS has decided to prohibit taking black bears over bait in national preserves. This decision is consistent with State regulations applicable to Denali State Park, where taking of wildlife is authorized but taking black bears over bait is prohibited (see 2014-2015 Alaska Hunting Regulations, p. 27 and 78 and 5 AAC 92.044 for game management units where the practice is authorized).

Bait stations tend to be located in accessible areas due to the infrastructure (typically a 55 gallon drum) and quantity (including weight) of bait used to engage in this activity and the frequency with which the stations must be replenished. Because of the accessibility of these areas, they are typically used by multiple user groups, which contributes to the public safety concerns associated with baiting. Although there are State regulations that prohibit bait stations within a certain distance of structures (cabins/residences), roads, and trails, these distances lack biological significance relative to bears, whose home ranges can include tens to hundreds of square miles.

32. Comment: Some commenters stated that bear baiting should be allowed in national preserves because it is a historical practice that predates the establishment of national preserves and it a customary practice by many Alaskans. Commenters also stated the practice should be allowed because the amount of take is or would be small.

NPS Response: According to information provided by the State of Alaska, harvest of black bears over bait was authorized by State regulations in 1982. The creation of all NPS areas in Alaska preceded this date. Harvest of bears over the remains of legally-harvested animals not required to be salvaged will continue to be lawful provided the remains are not moved. To the extent the practice of baiting bears is a customary and traditional practice by rural residents, those uses may be authorized for Federally qualified rural residents pursuant to regulations adopted by the Federal Subsistence Board.

The NPS recognizes that the number of bears harvested over bait in national preserves may not be large. However, this provision is not based on how many bears are harvested or whether that harvest would impact bear population levels. It is based on the legal and policy framework that governs national preserves and calls for maintaining natural ecosystems and processes and minimizing safety concerns presented by food-conditioned bears.

33. Comment: One commenter recommended the definition of bait exclude legally taken fish and that bait should exclude legally taken wildlife that is not required to be salvaged under federal as well as State law. A comment was received that game that died of natural causes should not be considered bait.

NPS Response: The NPS has modified the definition of bait in a manner that excludes native fish, consistent with State law. Upon review, the NPS determined it is not necessary to reference State or federal law regarding salvage requirements in the definition of bait. The result is that parts of legally taken fish or wildlife that are not required to be salvaged are not considered bait if the parts are not moved from the kill site. The rule excludes from the definition of bait game that died of natural causes, if not moved from the location where it was found.

34. Comment: Some comments stated that the use of artificial light to aid the harvest of black bears in dens should be allowed to ensure proper species identification, prevent take of cubs or sows with cubs, and facilitate a human shot placement. Others commented that the use of artificial light to aid the harvest of black bears in dens should be prohibited due to effects on ecological processes and populations and the potential for dangerous orphaned cubs.

NPS Response: Although artificial light may, in some cases, aid the harvest of black bears in dens by assisting with species identification and shot placement, the NPS does not support authorizing this practice for sport hunting in national preserves. For rural subsistence users, the NPS believes this matter is more appropriately addressed by the Federal Subsistence Board. The final rule maintains the proposed prohibition on using artificial light to take wildlife, subject to certain exceptions.

35. Comment: In response to a question in the proposed rule, some commenters supported the use of unleashed dogs to hunt black bears pursuant to a State permit. Some commenters stated that the use of dogs to hunt black bears has been allowed since 1970 and is not historically illegal. Other commenters opposed the use of dogs to hunt black bears. These comments stated that this activity would increase stress and trauma for the dogs and bears, reduce bear populations in national preserves, disrupt the natural balance of predator-prey dynamics, alter bear feeding patterns, harass other wildlife, transmit diseases to wildlife, interfere with other sport and subsistence hunters, and be dangerous for the dogs and humans in the area (including by driving bears into roadways and onto private property). Several comments stated that dogs used for hunting roam over large portions of the land, often out of the sight and control of their handlers. Some comments stated that this activity is unethical, unsportsmanlike, and does not have a traditional or cultural basis in Alaska. Other comments stated that dogs are often used to “tree” bears, which makes it difficult to determine the sex of the bear and could result in the killing of females with cubs.

NPS Response: Commenters are correct that using dogs to hunt black bears is not “historically illegal.” While State of Alaska law generally prohibits taking big game with the aid or use of a dog, there is an exception for using a dog to take black bears pursuant to a non-transferable permit issued by the ADF&G. The NPS agrees that this practice could have some of the adverse impacts suggested by commenters who oppose the practice. The NPS also believes the use of unleashed dogs to hunt black bears is one of the practices that is inconsistent with the traditional “sport hunting” that is authorized by ANILCA, as discussed above. The rule generally prohibits taking big game with the aid of use of a dog. The proposed rule has been modified to eliminate an exception that would have allowed the use of dogs to harvest black bears under a State permit.

36. Comment: Some commenters supported the use of unleashed dogs to hunt “problem animals” and the use of leashed dogs to hunt wounded black bears.

NPS Response: There is no allowance in State law to use unleashed dogs to hunt “problem animals.” Current State law allows use of a single, leashed dog in conjunction with tracking and dispatching a wounded big game animal, including black bear. The intent of the leash requirement is to ensure that native wildlife are not pursued, harassed, or killed by unleashed dogs and to prevent any contact between native wildlife and domestic dogs. The State-authorized use of a single, leashed dog in conjunction with tracking and dispatching a wounded big game animal will remain authorized in national preserves. The NPS will take appropriate action to protect the safety of park visitors and other wildlife from problem animals, such as bears.

37. Comment: Some commenters supported using sled dogs to travel to and from hunting and trapping areas, in search of game, and to haul out taken game, but not to chase wildlife.

NPS Response: Sled dogs are allowed under 16 U.S.C. 3121(b) of ANILCA for subsistence uses and under 16 U.S.C. 3170(a) of ANILCA for other traditional activities, unless prohibited or restricted on a site specific basis. There are currently no prohibitions or restrictions on this activity in areas where hunting and trapping are authorized. Herding, harassing, hazing, or driving wildlife is prohibited under NPS regulations. This includes “chasing” wildlife.

38. Comment: Several commenters supported the limitations on taking wolves and coyotes in the proposed rule, and suggested additional protections such as extending the duration of the no-take period and imposing bag limits. These comments were concerned about hunting pressure, declining populations, and protecting pregnant females to avoid orphaned pups and unsuccessful rearing. Other commenters opposed the limitations on taking wolves and coyotes in the proposed rule, and suggested additional allowances for taking these species, including adoption of the State hunting seasons. Several commenters stated that extended hunting seasons for wolves and coyotes allow for a traditional form of hunting specifically authorized under the State subsistence program, and are not meant to be predator control.

NPS Response: The rule prohibits taking wolves and coyotes from May 1 through August 9. These dates reflect previously longstanding State harvest seasons that provided harvest opportunities while maintaining viable wolf and coyote populations. The rule maintains the decades-old management paradigm of State and federal managers, rather than adopting recently liberalized State regulations that lengthen the hunting seasons. Should wolf or coyote population levels become a concern in the future, the NPS will work with the State and consider appropriate action at that time.

39. Comment: Some commenters stated that coyotes are not native to Alaska.

NPS Response: Coyotes are native to North America, and while coyotes may not have historically occupied all of their current range, their expansion most likely occurred through natural processes. Consequently, the NPS manages coyotes in the same manner as other native species consistent with NPS Management Policies (§§ 4.1, 4.4.1, 4.4.1.2, 4.4.2).

40. Comment: A few commenters questioned whether wolf pelts taken during the denning season have limited value.

NPS Response: The NPS understands that some individuals may have uses for wolf pelts that are harvested outside the normal trapping season. This rule, however, protects wolves during the denning season when they are vulnerable. The rule preserves the opportunity to harvest wolves when the pelts are thicker for cold winter temperatures. A pelt that has begun to shed out for summer is thinner, may become patchy, and for these reasons is not generally considered as valuable.

41. Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed prohibition on taking swimming caribou would be difficult to enforce because the harvest opportunities are along the river's edge and animals often fall in the low spots or the water. Another commenter supported the prohibition, noting that there are sufficient opportunities for sport hunters to harvest caribou on land.

NPS Response: NPS agrees that there are adequate opportunities for sport hunters to harvest caribou on land. Although there may be a few situations where it is difficult to tell whether a caribou was taken while swimming, the NPS believes that the prohibition will be enforceable. Also, under existing State regulations, this practice is limited to waters in GMUs 23 and 26. Noatak, Gates of the Arctic, and Bering Land Bridge are the only national preserves within these GMUs. To the extent individuals who are not federally qualified subsistence users engage in this activity elsewhere (e.g., Onion Portage within Kobuk Valley National Park), such use is not authorized under existing NPS regulations, which allow only federally qualified subsistence users to hunt within certain national parks and monuments in Alaska.

42. Comment: Several commenters opposed the prohibition on the take of swimming caribou, stating that it would prevent those who no longer live in rural Alaska from harvesting foods in a traditional manner. Commenters stated that former residents would not be allowed to return to hunt or to assist elders with hunting in traditional ways. Other commenters supported the proposed prohibition of taking caribou while swimming, noting that it is unsporting and not consistent with fair chase.

NPS Response: The NPS recognizes that taking caribou while swimming is a customary and traditional subsistence practice in some areas of the State. The NPS supports continuation of this practice under federal subsistence regulations in NPS units. The NPS also agrees with the comment that the practice of taking caribou while swimming is not consistent with fair chase and thus believes it is not appropriate to allow as a sport hunting practice. Although former local residents who no longer qualify to hunt under federal subsistence regulations will not be able to engage in such subsistence harvests, they may participate in other aspects of the traditional practice.

43. Comment: Some commenters opposed the proposed prohibition on obstructing hunting activities as unnecessary or providing special treatment to hunters. Others questioned the need for the provision because it is already in State law.

NPS Response: In the past, the NPS has received reports of individuals actively attempting to obstruct others from hunting. While this conduct is prohibited under State law, it is not currently prohibited under NPS regulations. Consequently, in the event of a violation of this type in a national preserve, only the State could take enforcement action. This rule allows the NPS also to take enforcement action. This protects the lawful rights of hunters in national preserves, but does not afford them special treatment above what they are currently entitled to by State law.

44. Comment: Commenters generally supported using native species as bait for fishing. Some commenters suggested the species used should be obtained from the waters being fished to avoid introducing a species that is native to Alaska but not native to a particular watershed.

NPS Response: The NPS agrees that bait species should be limited to those native to Alaska, but does not believe that allowing the use of species not native to a particular watershed poses a risk that new species will be introduced into that watershed. Existing State and federal regulations already prohibit the use of live fish for bait in fresh water, and using dead fish or unfertilized eggs removed from a harvested fish will not result in the introduction of new species that are not native to a particular watershed. In marine waters, existing regulations already require that any fish used for bait come from the same waters being fished.

45. Comment: One commenter supported allowing bait for fishing but stated the rule is not necessary because State regulations that allow bait apply to NPS units.

NPS Response: Section 13.40(b) provides that fishing must be consistent with 36 CFR 2.3. Section 2.3 prohibits the use of live or dead minnows or other bait fish, amphibians, nonpreserved fish eggs or fish roe as bait for fishing in fresh waters, along with methods other than hook and line. Consequently this rule is necessary to allow the use of native species of fish or fish eggs as bait for fishing.

46. Comment: Some commenters supported the intent to allow bait for fishing since it is a common practice and commonly allowed in Alaska, but said it would create confusion on waters where the State has prohibited bait. These commenters also noted the State allows many forms of bait that would not be considered native species, such as natural or synthetic scents, and natural or processed vegetable matter.

NPS Response: NPS regulations adopt non-conflicting State regulations. Under existing NPS regulations, the use of bait is allowed in accordance with State law under 36 CFR 2.3 except for the use of fish, amphibians or their eggs. This rule allows the use of native fish, amphibians, and their eggs as bait if authorized by the State. If the State does not allow the use of these types of bait in waters within NPS areas, State law will govern and the use of native fish, amphibians, and their eggs as bait will not be allowed.

47. Comment: Some commenters opposed removal of regulatory language providing for consultation with the State regarding potential closures to subsistence harvest of fish and wildlife. A suggestion was made to retain the provision adopting non-conflicting State laws for subsistence harvest of fish and wildlife. A comment also suggested adding several provisions to the subsistence closure procedures in 36 CFR 13.490, including consultation with various stakeholders, holding public hearings in the affected vicinity, and holding hearings in coordination with other meetings.

NPS Response: The existing provision that adopts non-conflicting State laws is not necessary due to the assumption by the Federal Subsistence Board of regulatory authority over Title VIII subsistence harvest of fish and wildlife. Federal subsistence regulations, which apply in NPS units where Title VIII subsistence is allowed, include regulatory language that adopts non-conflicting State laws. The provision in 36 CFR 13.490 is no longer necessary and will be removed by this rule.

Upon review of comments and considering the practices of the Federal Subsistence Board, the NPS agrees with the recommendation to retain the language providing for consultation with the State prior to the NPS implementing closures to subsistence take of fish and wildlife. Because harvest is regulated by the Federal Subsistence Board, the NPS has modified the proposed rule to also include consultation with the Federal Subsistence Board.

Finally, for consistency with 36 CFR 13.50, which was modified based upon comments (addressed below), the rule has been modified to specify that public hearings will be held near the affected park unit (rather than the “affected vicinity”) prior to implementing the management action in nonemergency situations.

48. Comment: Some commenters objected to the changes in 36 CFR 13.50 as inconsistent with ANILCA or not appropriate for Alaska.

NPS Response: The changes to 36 CFR 13.50 bring procedures for implementing closures and restrictions more in line with procedures that apply to the entire National Park System under 36 CFR 1.5, as well as procedures used by Alaska State Parks. 11 AAC 12.355. The public will benefit from aligning procedures with other NPS units as well as Alaska State Parks. This consistency will enable the public to more effectively engage managers regarding their uses of the public lands and the resources on them.

While commenters referred generally to the proposed changes as being inconsistent with ANILCA, the only provision cited was 16 U.S.C. 3202. That section contains general savings provisions preserving the Secretary's authority to manage public lands and preserving the State's non-conflicting authority to manage fish and wildlife on those lands. Nothing in that section is specifically relevant to the closure and restriction provisions of 36 CFR 13.50; accordingly the NPS finds no conflict between ANILCA and these procedural updates.

49. Comment: Some commenters stated the proposed rule would give too much authority to the superintendents to adopt restrictions, specifically on taking of fish or wildlife for sport purposes. Some commenters stated that closures or restrictions must be based upon demonstrated biological considerations (e.g., wildlife population data).

NPS Response: Federal statutes, including ANILCA, provide the NPS with substantial discretion in managing units of the National Park System. Generally, National Park System regulations need only be “necessary or proper for the use and management of System units.” 54 U.S.C. 100751. With respect to sport hunting in national preserves in Alaska, Congress authorized the NPS to restrict these activities for reasons of “public safety, administration, floral and faunal protection, or public use and enjoyment.” 16 U.S.C. 3201. The NPS thus is not required to base its management decisions regarding these restrictions only on biological considerations. The rule maintains the superintendent's long established authority to make management decisions for NPS units based upon a variety of criteria. The NPS plans to continue to require review of all proposed closures and restrictions at the regional level.

50. Comment: Some commenters were concerned that the proposed changes to 36 CFR 13.50 would limit Alaskans' ability to comment on potential closures and restrictions on NPS-managed areas by shortening the comment period, soliciting comments from non-residents of Alaska, and reducing the number of public meetings.

NPS Response: While hearings are required in certain circumstances (e.g., restricting subsistence harvest of fish or wildlife under Title VIII of ANILCA or access authorized under 16 U.S.C. 3170(a)), there is no statutory requirement to take public comment on closures or restrictions that are not required to be published in the Federal Register. The NPS believes, however, that public involvement is an important component of managing NPS units. Alaskans and all Americans have an important say in how these national interest lands are managed. Accordingly, except in emergencies, the rule requires an opportunity for public comment, including holding at least one public meeting near the affected NPS unit, prior to adopting a closure or restriction related to taking fish or wildlife. The changes to § 13.50 will not limit any existing opportunities, including public meetings, for Alaskan residents to comment on proposed closures and restrictions for NPS units in Alaska. The NPS posts online proposed closures and restrictions for NPS units in Alaska and invites public comment on them. The NPS intends to continue this practice.

51. Comment: Some commenters objected to removing the requirement that the NPS hold a hearing before implementing closures or restrictions on taking of fish and wildlife for sport purposes. Some were concerned that the NPS would cease meeting with local communities or that the change would give superintendents too much discretion to decide whether to meet with local communities. Some commenters stated the NPS should not consider the time or expense to the government or anticipated number of attendees in determining whether to hold public hearings.

NPS Response: The proposed rule would have replaced the existing regulatory requirement to hold a hearing in the affected vicinity with a requirement to provide an opportunity for public comment, which could include a written comment period, public meeting, public hearing, or a combination thereof. After reviewing comments and considering the similar procedures used by the BOG and the Federal Subsistence Board, the NPS modified the proposed rule to add a requirement to hold one or more public meetings near the affected park unit prior to implementing a closure or restriction on taking fish and wildlife in national preserves, except in the case of emergencies. The NPS will attempt to hold public meetings in conjunction with other events, like Subsistence Resource Commission meetings, when possible. The NPS will consider holding more than one public meeting depending the nature of the action, local interest, and other opportunities for engagement. The rule will also require the NPS to continue the current practice of providing an opportunity for public comment prior to implementing proposed closures and restrictions related to taking fish and wildlife. The NPS intends to continue its current practice of accepting written comments submitted electronically or by mail or hand delivery. This will give Alaskans and other Americans an opportunity to provide meaningful input on these management actions.

52. Comment: Some comments suggested the NPS provide public notice and hold a hearing prior to adopting emergency closures relating to fish and wildlife.

NPS Response: Although the NPS supports providing the public with a meaningful opportunity to comment, in certain circumstances action may be necessary to protect wildlife or public safety before there is an opportunity for public comment or a hearing. The NPS will provide appropriate notice of emergency closures and restrictions in accordance with the provisions of 36 CFR 13.50.

53. Comment: Some commenters stated the proposed rule would eliminate a requirement to do written determinations stating the basis for closures, restrictions, and other designations.

NPS Response: Although the procedures in 36 CFR 1.5(c) require a written determination of need explaining the reasons for closures or restrictions on public use, the current procedures in § 13.50 do not. The NPS however, has provided such determinations for all proposed closures and restrictions in NPS units in Alaska to better inform the public about the reasons for its decisions. This comment highlights the complexity regarding the various procedural regulations that currently apply to NPS units in Alaska. The NPS believes it is in the public's interest to streamline procedures as much as possible in order to make them more consistent. This will make it easier for the public to be involved in NPS decision-making in Alaska. Accordingly, the NPS has decided to apply the procedures of 36 CFR 13.50, as revised in this rule, to all closures and restrictions in NPS units in Alaska unless a more specific regulation in part 13 provides otherwise (i.e., 36 CFR 13.490 pertaining to closures to subsistence harvest of fish and wildlife). These revised procedures that apply to all NPS units in Alaska require a written determination explaining the basis of the restriction.

54. Comment: Some commenters objected to utilizing web-based tools for information sharing and taking public comment since not all Alaskans have reliable internet. Other commenters objected to using the internet because it is easier for individuals outside Alaska to provide input. Some commenters interpreted the proposed rule to imply that the NPS will engage the public using social media exclusively.

NPS Response: The NPS acknowledges that some individuals, especially in rural Alaska, may not have reliable internet access or may prefer other methods of communicating with the NPS. The methods of providing notice in the rule are consistent with NPS practices in place in Alaska for more than a decade. The primary method of notifying the public of closures or restrictions has been posting notice online and disseminating press releases by email. It has been the practice for the NPS to invite public comment through electronic means as well as by mail or hand delivery. The majority of public comments are received electronically. The NPS will continue to accept written comments through electronic and traditional means (mail or hand delivery). The NPS will also use other notification procedures such as posting in local post offices and other public places when practical. Individuals may also request copies of the park compendium and other NPS documents by mail or in person. Social media is a valuable tool to inform as well as engage a certain segment of the public, but it is not, and will not be, the only way the NPS engages and communicates with the public. The NPS believes that using the internet will make it easier for some segments of the American public, regardless of residency, to provide input on proposed management actions for NPS units in Alaska. This is appropriate because National Park System units are federal lands that are protected and preserved for all Americans.

55. Comment: Some commenters suggested that the proposed rule should provide opening procedures.

NPS Response: The procedures in the rule apply to the termination and relaxation of closures and restrictions, which includes actions that open areas and allow activities that had been closed or restricted.

56. Comment: Some commenters suggested retaining the distinction between permanent and temporary restrictions. These commenters recommend temporary restrictions be limited to 12 months and rulemaking be required for all permanent restrictions or those restrictions in place longer than 12 months. Other comments stated the existing 30-day limitation on emergency closures should be retained with no extensions.

NPS Response: The categories distinguishing permanent and temporary closures or restrictions have been problematic and difficult to implement, as noted by the State and others during the annual compendium review process on several occasions. Under current regulations, closures or restrictions in place for more than 12 months must be implemented by rulemaking and cannot be extended, regardless of significance or public interest. The result of this structure is that the NPS must repropose and reissue temporary closures or restrictions each year, even in circumstances where there is little public interest in the action, or where the action is an insignificant management decision. The existing framework is overly rigid and complicated, and unnecessarily compromises the NPS's ability to protect resources and provide for public use and enjoyment. The NPS has determined that the criteria-based rulemaking structure that exists in the nationwide NPS regulations (and is mirrored by Alaska State Parks) provides a better framework. A criteria-based framework requires notice and comment rulemaking based on the impact the closure or restriction will have on the values, resources, and visitors of the park unit. This framework allows the superintendent to implement closures or restrictions that do not significantly impact values, resources, or visitor use without needing to publish a rule in the Federal Register or propose the same action again every year. For example, a prohibition on smoking near fuel storage tanks would not necessarily require a rulemaking, but closing an area to all sport harvest on a permanent basis would. The criteria-based framework allows managers to be more flexible and adapt to changing circumstances. The improved consistency with other NPS units and Alaska State Parks will also make it easier for the public to be involved in decision-making regarding the use of public lands in Alaska.

With regard to the duration of emergency closures, the NPS rule is more consistent with the practice of other agencies and NPS regulations that apply outside of Alaska. The existing regulations limit emergency closures to 30 days without extension. Federal subsistence regulations regarding subsistence harvest of fish and wildlife provide for emergency closures of up to 60 days and allow for extensions. National Park System-wide regulations and Alaska State Parks regulations do not provide a time limit on emergency closures. 36 CFR 1.5, 11 AAC 12.355. With respect to restrictions on taking fish and wildlife for sport purposes in national preserves, the NPS adopts the 60-day timeframe and allows for extensions—after consultation with the State and public comment (including a public meeting)—if the emergency persists. The NPS believes the public will benefit from this consistency with respect to emergency closures or restrictions on taking of fish or wildlife. Other emergency actions will have no explicit expiration date and may exist until the emergency is resolved. This is consistent with regulations for NPS units located outside of Alaska and for Alaska State Parks.

57. Comment: Some commenters stated the NPS should retain the provision requiring consultation with the State and with “representatives of affected user groups” prior to adopting restrictions on the take of wildlife for sport purposes, including Subsistence Resource Commissions, federal subsistence regional advisory councils, local fish and game advisory committees, tribes, and others. Some commenters also stated the NPS must implement the recommendations of Subsistence Resources Commissions unless the criteria of 16 U.S.C. 3118(b) apply.

NPS Response: 16 U.S.C. 3201 requires the NPS to consult with the State prior to prescribing restrictions relating to hunting, fishing, or trapping in national preserves. The rule does not eliminate that statutory requirement; it has moved this requirement into § 13.50 because it relates to closures and restrictions. The rule also requires the NPS to provide an opportunity for public comment, including one or more public meetings near the affected national preserve prior to implementing a closure or restriction on taking fish or wildlife. This will provide representatives of affected user groups an opportunity to provide comments to the NPS prior to the action being implemented. User groups are invited and encouraged to provide input on all such proposed actions.

The NPS agrees that input from advisory groups, NPS Subsistence Resource Commissions, and others is important and valuable and the NPS encourages these groups to engage with the park superintendents on topics of interest. The NPS, however, does not agree that the provisions of 16 U.S.C. 3118(b) apply as broadly as suggested. Under 16 U.S.C. 3118, Subsistence Resource Commissions are established for areas designated as national parks and monuments (not national preserves) to provide subsistence hunting program recommendations. ANILCA further provides that a subsistence hunting program recommendation for national parks and monuments must be implemented unless it “violates recognized principles of wildlife conservation, threatens the conservation of healthy population of wildlife . . . is contrary to the purposes for which the park or park monument is established, or would be detrimental to the satisfaction of subsistence needs of local residents.” While Subsistence Resource Commissions provide valuable input on multiple topics that affect national parks, monuments, and national preserves, the Subsistence Resource Commission's statutory charge is specific to Title VIII subsistence hunting program recommendations in national parks and monuments. This rule does not restrict Title VIII subsistence and applies only to sport harvest on national preserves. Therefore 16 U.S.C. 3118(b) does not apply.

58. Comment: Some commenters stated that the factors in the rule that must be considered by superintendents prior to adopting a closure or restriction are ambiguous and give too much discretion to park superintendents. Other commenters suggested adding factors, including “natural,” “natural and healthy,” “healthy,” and “species of concern,” to those in the proposed rule. Other commenters suggested retaining the reference to emergencies.

NPS Response: The factors that must be considered by superintendents place appropriate guidelines around their authority to manage NPS units in Alaska. The discretionary authority granted to superintendents recognizes that they are subject matter experts regarding management of the park unit and allows them to take action and respond to changing circumstances in the unit.

Under the existing regulations, the superintendent must consider factors including public health and safety, resource protection, protection of cultural or scientific values, subsistence uses, conservation of endangered or threatened species, and other management considerations in determining whether to adopt closures or restrictions on an emergency basis. These factors appear elsewhere in 36 CFR part 13 (e.g., 36 CFR 13.460(b) and 13.485(c)). The NPS proposed to modify this section by requiring the superintendent to consider these factors for all closures and restrictions (not just emergencies), and adding the criteria of “naturally functioning ecosystems” based on NPS Management Policies 2006, which implement the NPS Organic Act.

In the final rule, the NPS has decided that adding a requirement that the superintendent consider protecting “naturally functioning ecosystems” is unnecessary because this consideration is encompassed by the existing requirement that the superintendent consider “resource protection.” The NPS considered adding the terms “natural,” “natural and healthy,” “healthy,” and “species of concern,” but determined such terms are not necessary because they are a part of “resource protection” or in some cases “conservation of endangered or threatened species.”

After taking the public comments into consideration and after additional review, the NPS made the following substantive changes in the final rule:

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

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order 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. Executive Order 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.

This rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). This certification is based on the cost-benefit and regulatory flexibility analyses found in the report entitled “Cost-Benefit and Regulatory Flexibility Analyses: Proposed Revisions to Wildlife Harvest Regulations in National Park System Alaska Region” which can be viewed online at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/akro, by clicking the link entitled “Amend Hunting and Trapping Regulations in National Preserves In Alaska” and then clicking the link entitled “Document List.”

This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the SBREFA. This rule:

a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.

b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, federal, state, or local government agencies, or geographic regions

c. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S. based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

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

This rule does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630. A takings implication assessment is not required.

Under the criteria in section 1 of Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement. The rule's effect is limited to federal lands managed by the NPS in Alaska and it will not have a substantial direct effect on state and local government in Alaska. A Federalism summary impact statement is not required.

This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Specifically, this rule:

(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and

(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.

The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian Tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and under the Department's tribal consultation and Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) Native Corporation policies and have determined that tribal consultation is not required because the rule will have no substantial direct effect on federally recognized Indian tribes. While the NPS has determined the rule will have no substantial direct effect on federally recognized Indian tribes or ANCSA Native Corporation lands, water areas, or resources, the NPS consulted with Alaska Native tribes and Alaska Native Corporations on the proposed rule, as discussed above.

This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and a submission to the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act is not required. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

The NPS has analyzed this rule in accordance with the criteria of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 516 DM. We prepared an environmental assessment entitled “Wildlife Harvest On National Park System Preserves In Alaska” (EA) to determine whether this rule will have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, and an environmental impact statement is not required, because we reached a Finding of No Signficant Impact (FONSI). The EA and FONSI are available online at http://www.parkplanning.nps.gov/akro, by clicking on the link entitled “Amend Hunting and Trapping Regulations in National Preserves In Alaska” and then clicking on the link entitled “Document List.”

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

The primary authors of this regulation are Jay Calhoun, Regulations Program Specialist, National Park Service, Division of Jurisdiction, Regulations, and Special Park Uses; Philip Hooge, Denali National Park and Preserve; Barbara Cellarius, Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve; and Guy Adema, Debora Cooper, Joel Hard, Grant Hilderbrand, Brooke Merrell, Bud Rice, and Andee Sears of the Alaska Regional Office, National Park Service.

In consideration of the foregoing, the National Park Service amends 36 CFR part 13 as set forth below:

On December 10, 2012, EPA proposed to approve the BART and reasonable progress determinations for a number of EGUs in Florida as part of Florida's regional haze SIP. See 77 FR 73369. In that action, EPA proposed approval of Florida's BART determination for emissions Units 1 and 2 at McIntosh found subject to BART. On August 29, 2013, EPA issued a final, full approval of Florida's regional haze SIP. See 78 FR 53250. In that final action, EPA approved the BART determination for the McIntosh facility, including the determination that the existing level of control for NOx at Unit 1, best operating practices for good combustion, is the NOx BART control for Unit 1. See 78 FR 53263. As described in the August 29, 2013, final action, FDEP submitted a letter to EPA dated July 30, 2013, in which the State committed to provide EPA with a regional haze SIP revision no later than March 19, 2015, the deadline for the State's five-year regional haze periodic progress report SIP, that would include a NOx BART emissions limit for Unit 1 reflecting best operating practices for good combustion. FDEP also committed to modify the title V permit for McIntosh to include this new limit.

To fulfill its commitment in accordance with the July 30, 2013 letter, the State of Florida submitted a SIP revision dated March 10, 2015, revising the State's regional haze SIP to include a NOx BART emissions limit for McIntosh Unit 1 and a construction permit (FDEP Permit No. 1050004-034-AC) dated April 30, 2014, for Unit 1 containing this limit. The permit contains supporting conditions (e.g., monitoring requirements) and a condition specifying a schedule for McIntosh to apply for a revision to its title V permit to reflect the new permit conditions.

In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) published on August 20, 2015, EPA proposed to approve Florida's March 10, 2015, regional haze SIP revision fulfilling the State's July 20, 2013, commitment to provide EPA with a SIP revision containing a NOx BART emissions limit for McIntosh Unit 1 reflecting best operating practices for good combustion and conditions to modify the title V permit to incorporate this limit. See 80 FR 50591. The details of Florida's submittal and the rationale for EPA's actions are explained in the NPR. Comments on the proposed rulemaking were due on or before September 21, 2015. No adverse comments were received.

EPA is finalizing approval of the State of Florida's March 10, 2015, SIP revision and revising the regional haze SIP to include the NOx BART emissions limit for Unit 1 and the April 30, 2014, construction permit containing this limit. EPA is approving these changes to the Florida SIP because the submission meets the applicable regional haze requirements as set forth in the CAA and in EPA's regional haze regulations and the applicable requirements of section 110 of the CAA.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission 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 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, August 10, 1999);

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

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

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

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

The 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.

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. 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 December 22, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” are used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

Title I of the CAA specifies the general requirements for states to submit SIPs to attain and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the EPA's actions regarding approval of those SIPs. The EPA received a submittal from the ODEQ on July 7, 2014 requesting that the EPA approve into the Oregon SIP the revisions to the LRAPA open burning rules (title 47) adopted on March 14, 2008. In general, the revised LRAPA open burning rules make clarifications and provide for additional controls of open burning activities in Lane County. The EPA also received a submittal from the ODEQ on June 30, 2014 that updates Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter 340, Division 11, Rules of General Applicability and Organization, relating to contested cases (appeals of ODEQ actions) and OAR Chapter 340, Division 12, Enforcement Procedures and Civil Penalties. These divisions apply across all programs implemented by the ODEQ, including the air quality regulations that the EPA has approved into the SIP.

The July 7, 2014 and June 30, 2014 SIP submittals also contain amendments to OAR 340-200-0040. This rule describes the State's procedures for adopting its SIP and references all of the state air regulations that have been adopted by the ODEQ for approval into the SIP (as a matter of state law), whether or not they have yet been submitted to or approved by the EPA.

LRAPA made numerous revisions throughout title 47, Open Burning. The key substantive changes are discussed below. A more detailed evaluation of the revisions to LRAPA's open burning rules is in the docket for this action. As discussed below, the EPA proposes to find that, overall, the revised rules will provide for additional controls for open burning activities in Lane County, reduce particulate emissions in Lane County, and strengthen Oregon's SIP.

LRAPA made several revisions to the types of open burning exempt from regulation and added one new exemption category. Although residential barbequing remains exempt, LRAPA has clarified that certain prohibited materials, such as garbage or plastic, may not be burned as fuel. The exemption for residential fires for recreational purposes has been narrowed by prohibiting the use of yard waste as fuel and prohibiting such fires altogether on yellow and red home wood heating advisory days called by LRAPA in the winter months within the Eugene/Springfield Urban Growth Boundary (ESUGB) and within the city limits of Oakridge. Religious ceremonial fires have been added as a new category of fires exempt from title 47. See LRAPA 47-005-2.C and 47-010 (definition of “religious ceremonial fires”). LRAPA expects religious ceremonial fires to occur infrequently and the definition requires that such fires be controlled, be “integral to a religious ceremony or ritual,” and that prohibited materials not be burned. Given the narrow scope of this exemption, that the exemptions from title 47 have otherwise been narrowed, and that the other revisions to title 47 generally strengthen the prohibitions on open burning, the EPA finds that the new exemption for religious ceremonial fires will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. The EPA therefore approves the revisions to LRAPA 47-005, Exemptions from these Rules.

The following definitions in LRAPA 47-010 have been revised: Agricultural open burning, commercial wastes, construction wastes, construction open burning, demolition wastes, demolition open burning, Eugene-Springfield Urban Growth Boundary, industrial open burning, and industrial waste. In general, the revisions to these definitions clarify the types of burn and waste categories. For example, through revisions to the definitions of construction waste, demolition waste, and commercial waste, it is now clear that wastes transported offsite are considered commercial waste even if the waste might otherwise meet the definition of construction or demolition waste. Because requirements for the open burning of commercial waste are generally more restrictive, these clarifications make the rules more stringent. These changes to definitions also make clear that materials included in the list of prohibited materials in LRAPA 47-015-1.E cannot be burned even if the material otherwise meets the specified definition. Again, these revisions make the rules more stringent.

Definitions have been added to LRAPA 47-010 for agricultural operation, agricultural waste, bonfire, forest slash open burning, nuisance, recreational fire, religious ceremonial fire, and salvage. The new definition of “religious ceremonial fire” is discussed above in Section II.A.1 and the new definition of “forest slash opening burning” is discussed in Section II.A.3 below. In general, the other new definitions clarify the meaning of terms previously used in the rules and thus enhance the enforceability of the rules.

Because the revised and new definitions in LRAPA 47-010 either increase the stringency of the rules or provide clarification to enhance enforceability, the EPA approves revisions to LRAPA 47-010 except for the definition of “nuisance,” which is discussed in more detail in Section II.A.5 below.

Note that the introductory language in LRAPA 47-010 references title 12 of the LRAPA regulations for additional definitions. Proposed revisions to title 12 were included in a SIP submission that the EPA received on August 28, 2014. The present action does not address those revisions. The EPA will be acting on that submission in a future action.

LRAPA 47-015 contains most of the requirements for open burning, with general requirements to be met for all open burning and specific requirements for residential open burning, construction and demolition open burning, commercial open burning, industrial open burning, and a new category, forest slash open burning.

Requirements for residential open burning have been made more stringent in a number of respects. The ending times for open burns are now set by a LRAPA burning advisory, rather than automatically extending until sunset. All open burning remains prohibited within the city of Eugene, and the prohibition on open burning within the city of Springfield has been expanded so that the burning of woody yard trimmings on lots of a half acre or more is now only allowed between March 1 through June 15 and October 1 through October 31, rather than from October 1 to June 15. The period of allowed residential open burning outside of the Eugene and Springfield city limits but within the ESUGB has similarly been narrowed. The Hazeldell and Siuslaw fire districts have been added to the list of fire districts that must comply with the open burning requirements for fire districts, which include the prohibition on burning construction/demolition debris unless authorized by a letter permit. Therefore, the conditions for open burning in the two newly added fire districts are now more stringent. Finally, a new section restricts residential open burning of woody yard trimmings, leaves and grass in Lane County outside of the affected areas identified in LRAPA 47-015-2.B-F to approved burn days from October 1 through June 15, instead of year around. There have been no substantive changes to the requirements for construction and demolition open burning, commercial open burning, or industrial open burning.

A new section has been added to specifically address forest slash open burning. LRAPA 47-015-6.A confirms that forest slash open burning in areas covered by the Oregon Smoke Management Plan is regulated by the Oregon Department of Forestry under ORS 477.515 and not under LRAPA title 47. Such burning is already specifically exempt from LRAPA title 47 under the current SIP. See LRAPA 47-005-1.D.

LRAPA 47-015-6.B addresses forest slash open burning in Lane County outside of areas covered by the Oregon Smoke Management Plan. Forest slash open burning in such areas is now expressly prohibited within the ESUGB. Forest slash open burning is also prohibited unless authorized by a letter permit under LRAPA 47-020, in the fire districts identified in LRAPA 47-015-2.F and other properties not covered by the Oregon Smoke Management Plan. Maps provided by LRAPA show that there is very limited forest land in Lane County that is not covered by the Smoke Management Plan, and would therefore be covered by the LRAPA forest slash open burning rules.

Any slash burning in Lane County must now be coordinated with the South Cascade and Western Lane districts, and be consistent with slash burning advisories issued by Oregon Department of Forestry. In addition, under LRAPA 47-020-1, letter permits for such forest slash open burning can only be issued on a singly occurring or infrequent basis. According to LRAPA, forest slash open burning was not previously expressly regulated under title 47 prior to 1995. Seen in that light, the regulation of forest slash open burning on land not covered by the Oregon Smoke Management Plan would be an increase in the stringency of the Oregon SIP. The EPA considers the language in LRAPA 47-001 (“all open burning is prohibited in Lane County except as expressly allowed by these rules or if exempted from these rules by Oregon Statute”), which is currently approved in the SIP, however, as potentially prohibiting forest open slash burning on land that is not covered by the Oregon Smoke Management Plan. In that respect, authorizing forest slash open burning through a letter permit under certain conditions could be considered less stringent than the current SIP. In any event, given the many other provisions of this SIP revision that make the SIP more stringent, that only one instance of such open slash burning has been issued a letter permit by LRAPA since 1995, the factors considered by LRAPA and findings LRAPA must make in issuing a letter permit for forest slash open burning in LRAPA 47-020-5 and -6, the EPA concludes that allowing this narrow category of open burning will not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Accordingly, with the exception of LRAPA 47-015-6(B)(5), discussed in Section II.A.5 below, the EPA approves the revisions to LRAPA 47-015, Open Burning Requirements, because the revisions increase the overall stringency of the restrictions on open burning.

LRAPA 47-020 authorizes certain types of open burning under letter permits issued by LRAPA. As discussed in Section II.A.3 above, this section has been amended to add forest slash burning for a single occurrence or on an infrequent basis to the list of the categories of open burning that may be allowed by a letter permit issued by LRAPA. It has also been amended to authorize issuance of letter permits for a bonfire held for a single event. The EPA finds that the potential increase in emissions that would result from these infrequent activities would be de minimis in light of the other restrictions on open burning imposed by the other revisions to title 47 in this SIP submittal.

LRAPA 47-020-5 contains a list of factors to be considered by LRAPA in determining whether to issue a letter permit. This provision has been amended to allow LRAPA to consider as an alternative disposal method whether waste materials can be salvaged.

Because the availability of alternative disposal options mitigates against authorizing open burning under LRAPA's rules, see LRAPA 47-001, expanding the list of what can be considered as an alternative disposal method makes the rules more stringent.

With the exception of certain provisions discussed below in Section II.A.5 that do not relate to the requirements of section 110 of the CAA, the EPA approves the revisions to LRAPA 47-020 because the revisions do not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.

LRAPA has removed the table is section 47-030, Summary of Seasons, Areas, and Permit Requirements for Open Burning. This table was a summary of the text explaining what type of burning was allowed in each area of Lane County. Removing this table has no impact on the stringency of the rule.

Title 47 contains several provisions, both previously approved by the EPA into the Oregon SIP, and newly enacted or revised provisions, that relate to nuisance, fire safety, or environmental issues that do not relate to air quality. The EPA's authority to approve SIPs extends to provisions related to attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS and carrying out other specific requirements of section 110 of the CAA. Section 110(k)(6) of the CAA authorizes the EPA, upon a determination that the EPA's action approving, disapproving or promulgating any SIP or plan revision (or any part thereof) was in error, to revise such action as appropriate.

In this action, the EPA is not approving into the SIP and is removing from the SIP the following provisions of title 47 that do not relate to attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS or the other requirements of section 110 the CAA: The definition of “nuisance” in LRAPA 47-010; LRAPA 47-015-1.D (currently in the SIP); LRAPA 47-015-1.H; LRAPA 47-015-6.B(5); LRAPA 47-020-3 (currently in the SIP); LRAPA 47-020-9.I; LRAPA 47-020-10 (first sentence currently in the SIP).

Oregon's June 30, 2014 submittal revises OAR Chapter 340, Division 11, to align with the Oregon Attorney General Model Rules, which address procedures for filing and serving documents in contested cases (appeals of ODEQ actions). These rule revisions were adopted by Oregon on December 11, 2013 and became effective on January 6, 2014. The rules were revised to improve the clarity and completeness of contested case appeals coming before the Environmental Quality Commission.

Division 11 provides authority needed for implementing the SIP and is consistent with the CAA requirements for the issuance of permits and enforcement authority. The EPA is therefore approving the revisions to Division 11 submitted by the ODEQ, subject to the qualifications discussed below in Section III.

Division 12 contains enforcement procedures and civil penalty provisions that apply across all programs implemented by the ODEQ, including the air quality regulations that the EPA has approved into the SIP. Division 12 provides the authority and procedures under which the ODEQ notifies regulated entities of violations, determines the appropriate penalties for violations, and assesses penalties for such violations. The revisions to Division 12 made by the ODEQ implement legislative increases in statutory maximum penalties, align violation classifications and magnitudes with ODEQ program priorities, provide greater mitigating credit for correcting violations, and make minor housekeeping changes.

The EPA has reviewed the revisions to OAR Chapter 340, Division 12 and finds that these rules continue to provide the ODEQ with adequate authority for enforcing the SIP as required by section 110 of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 50.230(b). Importantly, OAR 340-012-0160(1) gives the ODEQ the discretion to increase a base penalty to that derived using the next highest penalty matrix value and OAR 340-012-0160(4) gives the ODEQ the discretion to deviate from the penalty matrices and assess penalties of $25,000 per day, per violation based on the facts and circumstances of the individual case. The EPA therefore approves into the SIP the revisions to Division 12 submitted by the ODEQ, subject to the qualifications discussed below in Section III.

The EPA is taking the following action on the revisions to LRAPA title 47, Open Burning, adopted on May 14, 2008, and submitted to the EPA by the ODEQ on July 7, 2014. We approve the revisions to the following sections except as identified below: 47-001, General Policy; 47-005, Exemptions from These Rules; 47-010, Definitions; 47-015, Open Burning Requirements; and 47-020, Letter Permits. As discussed in Section II.A.5 above, because the EPA's authority to approve SIPs extends to provisions related to attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS and carrying out other specific requirements of section 110 of the CAA, we are not approving into the SIP and are removing from the SIP under the authority of CAA section 110(k)(6) the following provisions: The definition of “nuisance” in LRAPA 47-010; LRAPA 47-015-1.D (currently in the SIP); LRAPA 47-015-1.H; LRAPA 47-015-6.B(5); LRAPA 47-020-3 (currently in the SIP); LRAPA 47-020-9.I; LRAPA 47-020-10 (first sentence currently in the SIP).

The EPA also approves revisions to OAR Chapter 340, Division 11, adopted on December 11, 2013 and submitted by the ODEQ on June 30, 2014. The EPA is approving this division, however, only to the extent it relates to implementation of requirements contained in the Oregon SIP. The EPA is not incorporating these rules by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations, however, because the EPA relies on its independent administrative and enforcement procedures under the CAA.

The EPA also approves revisions to OAR Chapter 340, Division 12, adopted on December 11, 2013 and submitted by the ODEQ on June 30, 2014, except for the following provisions that do not relate to air emissions and were not submitted by the ODEQ for approval: OAR 340-012-0027,1 -0055, -0060, -0065, -0066, -0067, -0068, -0071, -0072, -0073, -0074, -0079, -0081, -0082, -0083, -0097. In addition, the EPA is approving the remaining sections in Chapter 340, Division 12, only to the extent they relate to enforcement of requirements contained in the Oregon SIP. Again, the EPA is not incorporating these rules by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations, however, because the EPA relies on its independent enforcement procedures and penalty provisions in bringing enforcement actions and assessing penalties under the CAA.

The EPA is not approving the revisions to OAR 340-200-0040 in these SIP submittals because these provisions address state SIP adoption procedures and because the Federally-approved SIP consists only of regulations and other requirements that have been submitted by the ODEQ and approved by the EPA.

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is incorporating by reference the ODEQ regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The 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).

Under the Clean Air Act, 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 approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not 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, August 10, 1999);

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

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

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

• 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 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

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, the rule 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 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 Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 22, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that the EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

Through a two-person panel of administrative judges, the Interior Board of Indian Appeals (IBIA) has the authority to consider appeals from decisions of agency officials and administrative law judges in cases under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA). Located within the Department of Interior's Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA), IBIA is separate and independent from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.

Effective February 11, 2002, the IBIA was relocated to 801 North Quincy Street, Arlington, Virginia. To avoid confusion with appeals, HHS is updating its administrative appeals regulations to reflect the IBIA's new street address.

The Department has determined that the public notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b), do not apply to this rulemaking because the changes being made relate solely to matters of agency organization, procedure, and practice. It, therefore, satisfies the exemption from notice and comment rulemaking in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A).

Moreover, the Department has determined that there is good cause to waive the requirement of publication 30 days in advance of the rule's effective date under 5 U.S.C. 553(d). The error in the IBIA's location could cause misdirection of appeals. Thus, if the changes in this rule were to become effective 30 days after publication, it could cause further delays in processing appeals. Because an earlier effective date benefits the public, there is good cause for making this rule effective in less than 30 days, as permitted by 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

The Department has reviewed this rule under the following statutes and executive orders governing rulemaking procedures: The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.; the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.; the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.; the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.; the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; Executive Order 12630 (Takings); Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review); Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform); Executive Order 13132 (Federalism); Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation); and Executive Order 13211 (Energy Impacts). The Department has determined that this rule does not trigger any of the procedural requirements of those statutes and executive orders, since this rule merely changes the street address for the IBIA.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department, through the Indian Health Service amends subpart P of title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations part 137 to read as follows:

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order (“Order”), MB Docket No. 14-226, FCC 15-118, which was adopted and released on September 17, 2015. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document will also be available via ECFS at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat. Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by sending an email to [email protected] or calling the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

This document contains new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).1 The requirements will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies will be invited to comment on the new or modified information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, we note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, we previously sought specific comment on how the Commission might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

1. Our “Contest Rule,” Section 73.1216 of our rules, requires broadcast licensees to disclose on air the material terms of contests that they broadcast. In this Order, we update that rule to permit broadcast licensees to comply with their obligation to disclose material contest terms either by broadcasting those terms or by making them available in writing on a publicly accessible Internet Web site. In particular, we amend the Contest Rule to allow licensees to satisfy their disclosure obligation by posting material contest terms on the station's Web site, the licensee's Web site, or, if neither the individual station nor the licensee has its own Web site, any Internet Web site that is readily accessible to the public. Commenters in this proceeding uniformly support updating the Contest Rule, which has remained unchanged since its adoption by the Commission almost forty years ago.

2. We also adopt, with some modifications, requirements proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that define the disclosure obligation in cases where a licensee has chosen to meet its obligation through an Internet Web site. Specifically, we revise the Contest Rule to specify that in such cases a licensee: (i) Must broadcast the relevant Web site address periodically with information sufficient for a consumer easily to find material contest terms online; (ii) must establish a link or tab to material contest terms on the Web site's home page; (iii) must maintain contest terms online for a period of at least thirty days after the contest has ended; and (iv) must announce on air that the material terms of a contest have changed since the contest was first announced, where that is the case, and direct participants to the Web site to review the changes. As discussed below, the announcements of any change in contest terms must be made within 24 hours of the change and periodically thereafter. Finally, we require that licensees ensure that any material terms disclosed on a Web site conform in all substantive respects to those mentioned over the air.

3. The actions we take in this Order to update the Contest Rule advance the public interest by affording broadcasters more flexibility in the manner of their compliance with Section 73.1216 while giving consumers improved access to important contest information. Through this Order, we take another step to modernize our rules to reflect how Americans access and consume information in the 21st century. At the same time, we affirm the core principles of the Contest Rule. Regardless of the medium of disclosure, broadcasters must provide complete, accurate, and timely information about the contests they conduct, ensure that such information is not false, misleading, or deceptive, and conduct their contests substantially as announced or advertised.

4. Radio and television broadcast stations often conduct contests as a means of entertainment, promoting station support, and deepening audience engagement.2 Almost forty years ago, in 1976, the Commission adopted the Contest Rule to address concerns about the way in which broadcast stations were conducting contests.3 Although under the existing rule, a licensee may use non-broadcast methods to disclose material contest terms, it cannot substitute such methods for the required broadcast disclosure and be deemed compliant with the rule.4

5. In January 2012, Entercom Communications Corp. (“Entercom” or “Petitioner”) filed an unopposed Petition for Rulemaking asking the Commission to update the disclosure requirements of Section 73.1216.5 Petitioner principally sought an amendment to Section 73.1216 that would allow broadcasters to satisfy their obligation to disclose material contest terms either through broadcast announcements or by making such terms available in written form on an Internet Web site. In November 2014, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) seeking comment on a number of possible revisions to the Contest Rule. Commenters responding to the NPRM, largely broadcasters, support updating the Contest Rule but advocate some modifications to the Commission's proposed revisions.

6. As advocated by all of the commenters, we amend the Contest Rule to allow broadcast licensees to meet their obligation to disclose material contest terms either by broadcasting the material terms or by making those terms available in written form on a readily accessible public Internet Web site. We agree with parties who assert that, given the ubiquitous nature of the Internet and current consumer expectations about how to obtain information, broadcast disclosure of material contest terms no longer reflects the best means of conveying such information to the public in all cases. For example, although on-air disclosure may be preferable in certain circumstances, e.g., simple contests and cases in which stations lack Web sites, we believe that broadcasters should be given flexibility to meet their disclosure obligation either through broadcast announcements or the Internet, and we will defer to broadcasters' discretion in selecting between those means of disclosure. As explained below, we find that revising the Contest Rule to permit reliance on online disclosure will provide benefits to both consumers and broadcasters, and that such benefits outweigh any associated costs.

7. Based on the record, we conclude that allowing broadcasters to meet their obligation to disclose material contest terms through the Internet in lieu of broadcasting the terms will benefit consumers by improving their access to important contest information, to the extent that our action results in greater use of online disclosure. Because the current rule requires that licensees disclose material contest terms via broadcast announcements periodically, audience members interested in a contest may not hear or see contest disclosures if they are not tuned into the broadcast at the time the announcement is aired. Moreover, even in cases where prospective contestants hear or see a contest disclosure, the length or complexity of contest terms or the speed at which licensees communicate those terms may render it difficult for many to comprehend or recall the information conveyed. For these reasons, we agree with parties who assert that broadcasters' online posting of material terms will allow consumers to obtain “on demand” access to those terms and to review them at their convenience, thereby increasing the likelihood that contest terms will be understood and remembered.

8. We find that this revision to the Contest Rule is consistent with consumer expectations about how to obtain contest information. As many parties note, the public today accesses information in ways that are dramatically different from how they did when the Contest Rule was adopted. The Internet has become a fundamental part of consumers' daily lives and now represents the medium used most by the public to obtain information instantaneously. Given that Americans today are accustomed to using the Internet to obtain a broad range of information, we agree with parties who assert that consumers reasonably expect to obtain information about licensee-conducted contests through the Internet. Indeed, as some parties note, broadcasters already use the Internet to post contest-related information, and consumers often enter and participate in contests via the Internet. Amending the Contest Rule to permit reliance on online disclosure of material contest terms thus brings the rule into alignment with current consumer expectations.

9. As noted, permitting reliance on online disclosure of contest terms also will benefit broadcasters by affording them greater flexibility in the manner of their compliance with Section 73.1216 and by freeing up air time for other programming. Because many broadcasters already have dedicated Web sites where they can post complete contest information that the public can access “on demand,” and because we are not requiring broadcasters to use online posting if they prefer to broadcast contest terms over the air, we agree with parties who assert that the benefits of this rule change outweigh any associated costs.

10. Although this rule revision is intended, in part, to give broadcasters more flexibility in how they satisfy their obligation to disclose material contest terms, we find that the public interest will be served by establishing specific requirements that define the disclosure obligation in cases where a broadcaster chooses to meet that obligation through an Internet Web site. In particular, we believe that these requirements, which are comparable to those that apply to on-air disclosures,6 will provide guidance to licensees and facilitate useful access to contest information by the public. We discuss each requirement, in turn, below.

The purpose of this rulemaking is to add new DEAR Subparts 925.71 and 970.2571 to clarify requirements concerning compliance with export control laws and regulations applicable in the performance of DOE contracts.

Export control laws and regulations that may apply to a DOE contract include, but are not limited to: The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), as amended; the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.); the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. app. 2401 et seq.), as continued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (Title II of Pub. L. 95-223, 91 Stat. 1626, October 28, 1977); Trading with the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. App. 1 et seq. as amended by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961); Assistance to Foreign Atomic Energy Activities (10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 810); Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730 through 774); International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 CFR parts 120 through 130); Export and Import of Nuclear Equipment and Material (10 CFR part 110); and regulations administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the Department of the Treasury (31 CFR parts 500 through 598).

DOE provided summaries of these export control laws in section II of its proposed rule. See 78 FR 35195 (June 12, 2013).

DOE is amending the DEAR to add provisions similar to the 2013 amendments to the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) (DFARS 225, Foreign Acquisition, and DFARS 252, 78 FR 36108, June 17, 2013); DFARS 252, Foreign Acquisition, 78 FR 48331, August 8, 2013; and to the DFARS Procedures, Guidance, and Information (PGI) 225 “Foreign Acquisition” (revised June 26, 2013).

Part 925 is amended by adding new section 925.71 to set forth requirements for contractors concerning compliance with U.S. export control laws and regulations.

Points of contact and specific U.S. government agency requirements for export controls can be found as follows:

Department of Commerce (DOC): http://www.bis.doc.gov/licensing/exportingbasics.htm

Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Office of Nonproliferation and International Security: http://nnsa.energy.gov/aboutus/ourprograms/nonproliferation/programoffices/officenonproliferationinternationalsecurity.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission: http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/ip/export-import.html.

Department of State: http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/about/key_personnel.html and http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/documents/ddtc_getting_started.pdf.

Department of Treasury: http://www.treasury.gov/services/Pages/Foreign-Transaction-Licensing-and-Reporting.aspx.

DOE contractors are responsible for complying with export control requirements applicable to their contracts as set forth in new DEAR Export Clauses. It is a contractor's responsibility to comply with all applicable export control laws and regulations. This responsibility exists independent of, and is not established or limited by, this DEAR rulemaking.

Part 952 is amended by adding new clause 952.225-71 to set forth requirements for DOE contractors concerning compliance with applicable export control laws and regulations.

Points of contact and specific U.S. government agency requirements for export controls can be found as follows:

Department of Commerce (DOC): http://www.bis.doc.gov/licensing/exportingbasics.htm

Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Office of Nonproliferation and International Security: http://nnsa.energy.gov/aboutus/ourprograms/nonproliferation/programoffices/officenonproliferationinternationalsecurity.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission: http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/ip/export-import.html.

Department of State: http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/about/key_personnel.html and http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/documents/ddtc_getting_started.pdf.

Department of Treasury: http://www.treasury.gov/services/Pages/Foreign-Transaction-Licensing-and-Reporting.aspx.

DOE contractors are responsible for complying with export control requirements applicable to their contracts as set forth in new DEAR Export Clauses. It is a contractor's responsibility to comply with all applicable export control laws and regulations. This responsibility exists independent of, and is not established or limited by, this DEAR rulemaking.

Subpart 970.25 is amended by adding new section 970.2571 to set forth requirements for management and operating contractors concerning compliance with applicable export control laws and regulations. Subpart 970.52 is amended by adding new clause 970.5225-1 to set forth requirements for management and operating contractors concerning compliance with applicable export control laws and regulations.

Points of contact and specific U.S. government agency requirements for U.S. export controls can be found as follows:

Department of Commerce (DOC): http://www.bis.doc.gov/licensing/exportingbasics.htm.

Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Office of Nonproliferation and International Security: http://nnsa.energy.gov/aboutus/ourprograms/nonproliferation/programoffices/officenonproliferationinternationalsecurity.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission: http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/ip/export-import.html.

Department of State: http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/about/key_personnel.html and http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/documents/ddtc_getting_started.pdf.

Department of Treasury: http://www.treasury.gov/services/Pages/Foreign-Transaction-Licensing-and-Reporting.aspx.

DOE management and operating contractors are responsible for complying with export control requirements applicable to their contracts as set forth in new DEAR Export Clauses. It is the contractor's responsibility to comply with all applicable export control laws and regulations. This responsibility exists independent of, and is not established or limited by, this DEAR rulemaking.

DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) on June 12, 2013 (78 FR 35195). The NOPR reflected the approach previously taken by the Department of Defense (DoD) in the Defense Acquisition Regulations Supplement (DFARS) to address requirements for complying with export control laws and regulations when performing DoD contracts. DOE has received recommendations from the General Accounting Office and the DOE Inspector General to modify the DEAR for the same purpose. DOE received comments from 15 organizations in response to the NOPR. In addition, within days of publication of the NOPR, the DoD revised the DFARS to address issues similar to those reflected in comments received on the NOPR and provided guidance relating to the release of fundamental research information. This final rule reflects the approach taken by the DoD on June 17, 2013, to changes to sections 225.79 and 252.225-7048 of the DFARS (Foreign Acquisition, 78 FR 36108), and to changes to Part 225 of the DFARS PGI—225.79 (Foreign Acquisition, Export Control). This NOPR also reflects DoD guidance in 78 FR 48331, August 8, 2013, related to the release of research information that may be export controlled.

The following paragraphs describe the changes included in this final rule as a result of those comments and provide DOE's response to the comments received.

(a) All notification and reporting requirements have been removed.

(b) The requirement for contractors to comply with DOE directives “in effect on the date of the contract award” has been removed.

(c) References to “transfers” have been removed.

(d) References to specific DOE Orders have been removed.

(e) The Export Restriction Notice has been removed from the Export Clauses.

(f) The phrase “subject to export controls” has been removed from the Export Clauses.

(g) All listings of U.S. export control laws and regulations are preceded by, “include, but are not limited to:”

(h) All references to “export-controlled items” and “export control of items” have been removed. The rule addresses “compliance with export control laws and regulations” and does not attempt to define what is and is not export controlled.

Discussion of comments and responses.

1. Comment: Six respondents claimed that export control laws exist and already apply to U.S. persons, regardless of whether a contractor represents to DOE that it is complying with applicable export laws.

Response: As stated in the NOPR, export compliance responsibilities exist independent of and are not established or limited by the proposed rule. It is customary practice for laws and regulations applicable to DOE contracts to be listed in the contracts. In addition, DOE is requiring the new Export Clauses to be added to all applicable contracts. Listing applicable export laws and regulations in the Export Clauses will help ensure that contractors are aware of their responsibilities, emphasize the importance to DOE of contractor compliance with such laws and regulations, and minimize the risk of non-compliance with U.S. laws and regulations that could have major programmatic and financial impacts on DOE and contractors. No change was made to the text as a result of this comment.

2. Comment: Six respondents claimed that the rule encroaches on the export authority of other U.S. export licensing authorities.

Response: The rule does not affect the export authority of any U.S. Government agency. The purpose of the rule is to direct DOE contractors to seek guidance from and to communicate with export licensing officers at export licensing agencies and not to ask DOE Contracting Officers for assistance in complying with export control requirements. The rule provides explicit instructions to DOE Contracting Officers, if asked by a DOE contractor to provide export assistance, to direct contractors to applicable export laws and regulations and to the agencies administering them. The final rule makes it clear that DOE does not have an export compliance officer overseeing DOE contractor export activities, and that contractors are responsible for compliance with export controls. No change was made to the text as a result of this comment.

3. Comment: Four respondents claimed the proposed rule has existing or potential inconsistencies with export control authorities.

Response: As noted above, the purpose of the rule is to direct DOE contractors to seek guidance from and to communicate with export licensing officers at export licensing agencies and not to ask for export control compliance assistance from DOE Contracting Officers. The final rule has been revised to remove reporting and marking requirements, as well as language cited by one respondent as potentially inconsistent with other authorities.

4. Comment: One respondent expressed concern as to how differences of opinion on the applicability of export control requirements between agencies responsible for administering the laws and the DOE Contracting Officer would be resolved.

Response: The rule makes clear that DOE Contracting Officers do not make any decisions regarding the applicability of export control laws or regulations. The appropriate licensing agency determines whether export control requirements apply. It is a contractor's responsibility to adhere to all relevant export control laws and regulations. No change was made to the text as a result of this comment.

5. Comment: One respondent claimed that DOE is potentially setting up a conflict for a contractor between complying with changes in export laws and regulations that are not yet changed in its contract clause.

Response: The listing of export control laws and regulations in the Export Clauses in the final rule are preceded by “include, but are not limited to:”. Any changes in U.S. export laws or regulations would apply to a contractor because the Export Clauses require compliance with all applicable export control laws and regulations. No change was made to the text as a result of this comment.

6. Comment: Two respondents alleged that the proposed rule is inconsistent with the Export Control Reform Initiative.

Response: The final rule is consistent with the Export Control Reform Initiative (ECRI). The purpose of this rule is to simplify the export process for DOE contractors, by directing them to the proper export licensing authorities. Reporting requirements have been removed from the final rule.

7. Comment: Three respondents claimed that the proposed rule is redundant to DEAR 970.5204-2 Laws, Regulations and DOE Directives, because that clause adequately covers compliance with export laws and regulations.

Response: The rule clarifies DOE contractor and Contracting Officer responsibilities regarding export controls not clearly stated in any other law or regulation. The Export Clauses clarify that DOE contractors are to contact appropriate export licensing agencies and not DOE Contracting Officers with questions regarding export control compliance. The Export Clauses direct DOE Contracting Officers to address contractor export control questions by directing them to relevant export control laws and regulations and licensing agencies. No change was made to the text as a result of this comment.

8. Comment: One respondent questioned the requirement for contractors to comply with DOE directives “in effect on the date of the contract award,” as individual DOE contracts specify applicable DOE directives for each DOE contract.

Response: DOE acknowledges that contracts specify applicable DOE directives. This language has been removed from the final rule.

9. Comment: Two respondents claimed that DOE already has adequate contractual enforcement tools.

Response: The purpose of the rule is not to provide additional enforcement tools. This rule is needed to clarify DOE contractor and Contracting Officer export control responsibilities not clearly stated in any other law or regulation. No change was made to the text as a result of this comment.

10. Comment: Six respondents claimed that export control requirements are not needed in the DEAR and that the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) limits agency acquisition regulations to those necessary to implement FAR policies and procedures.

Response: The final rule provides necessary policies and procedures not included in the FAR. It clarifies that DOE contractors are to consult appropriate export licensing agencies and not DOE Contracting Officers with questions regarding export compliance. The final rule directs DOE Contracting Officers to handle export control questions posed by contractors by directing the contractors to the relevant export licensing agencies. This rule is needed to clarify DOE contractor and DOE Contracting Officer responsibilities that are not clearly stated in any other law or regulation. No change was made to the text as a result of this comment.

11. Comment: Six respondents claimed that the proposed rule exceeds the stated purpose of the rule, which is to amend the DEAR for consistency with a 2010 amendment to the DFARS. They said that the proposed rule is not consistent with the revised DFARS clauses.

Response: The final rule reflects the approach taken in the June 17, 2013, changes to 225.79 and 252.225-7048 of the DFARS (Foreign Acquisition, 78 FR 36108) and to the June 17, 2013 changes to Part 225.79 of the DFARS PGI-225 (Foreign Acquisition). No change was made to the text as a result of this comment.

12. Comment: Three respondents claimed that the proposed rule is ineffective as a way to respond to 2004 and 2007 DOE Inspector General (IG) and 2011 Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports on DOE contractor non-compliance with export laws.

Response: The rule responds to DOE IG and GAO recommendations in the cited reports for DOE to provide specific export control guidance to DOE contractors. In particular, the 2007 DOE IG report recommended that DOE “ensure that export control guidance is disseminated and implemented throughout the complex.” To implement that recommendation, the IG report stated that “NNSA management should expedite action, such as issuing a directive or modifying the Department of Energy Acquisition Regulation (DEAR), to fully implement the open recommendation.” The 2011 GAO report repeated its prior recommendations for DOE to provide guidance to its contractors. The proposed rule is in direct response to the DOE IG recommendation to modify the DEAR, as well as the recommendations in the GAO report. No change was made to the text as a result of this comment.

13. Comment: Two respondents claimed that the proposed rule unfairly asks Contracting Officers to make export control decisions for which they are not trained. One respondent proposed rewording the requirement for Contracting Officers to insert the export control clause as follows: “The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause at 952.225-71, Compliance with export control laws, regulations and directives (Export Clause), in all solicitations and contracts.”

Response: The purpose of the new rule is to set forth the responsibilities of DOE contractors and DOE Contracting Officers concerning contractor compliance with export-controlled activities. Contracting Officers are required to include the Export Clause at DEAR 952.225-71 or DEAR 970.5225-1 in solicitations and contracts that would involve export-controlled activities. While the rule has been revised to be applicable to “all solicitations and contracts,” export control laws would not be applicable to solicitations and contracts that do not involve export-controlled activities. As noted above, the revised language is similar to the policy approach taken DoD.

14. Comment: Nine respondents claimed that certain reporting requirements included in the Export Clauses would unduly burden DOE contractors because the requirement of a timely, written notification of export controls and compliance for DOE contracts would be an overbroad approach to ensuring export control compliance. Also, the requirement to flow down the reporting requirement would impose administrative and audit burdens on contractors.

Response: The final rule removes the requirements for a contractor to notify the DOE Contracting Officer when the contract may require export activities and for a contractor to assure the DOE Contracting Officer of its ability to comply with U.S. export laws and regulations. The reporting and notification requirements in the proposed rule were not required by any law or regulation, or recommended by any auditors. The purpose of the Export Clauses is to clarify that DOE contractors should consult appropriate export licensing agencies, and not DOE Contracting Officers, with questions regarding compliance with export-controlled activities. The reporting and notification requirements were removed from the rule to avoid any implication that DOE Contracting Officers have any export compliance responsibilities.

15. Comment: Two respondents were concerned about the impact on small business subcontractors and universities.

Response: U.S. export control laws and regulations already apply to activities conducted by small businesses and by universities that have DOE contracts, so there would be no substantive change regarding export control requirements applicable to these entities. No change was made to the text as a result of this comment.

16. Comment: Three respondents claimed that the proposed rule is not consistent with National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 189 because “products” most often generated and disseminated while performing fundamental research are scientific findings excluded from export regulations under the “Fundamental Research Exclusion” set forth in NSDD-189 and the exclusion of fundamental research from export controls in EAR and ITAR provisions.

Response: NSDD 189 establishes a national policy that, to the maximum extent possible, the products of fundamental research shall remain unrestricted. NSDD 189 provides that no restrictions may be placed upon the conduct or reporting of federally funded fundamental research that has not received national security classification, except as provided in applicable U.S. statutes. As a result, contracts confined to the performance of unclassified fundamental research generally do not involve any export-controlled activities. NSDD 189 does not take precedence over statutes. As it clearly states in the directive, NSDD 189 does not exempt any research from statutes that apply to export control laws and regulations. In addition, NSDD 189 is focused on the products of fundamental research and does not exempt access to export-controlled technology used or generated during the conduct of fundamental research. The final rule therefore is consistent with NSDD-189 regarding fundamental research because it does not have an impact on the NSDD-189 exemption for fundamental research and it does not modify restrictions already imposed by U.S. export control laws and regulations on research.

DFARS PGI-225.79 (revised June 17, 2013) and [the final rule on the release of fundamental research information in DFARS 252.204-7000 (August 8, 2013) address release of fundamental research information]. Note that the revised DFARS PGI-225 places reporting requirements on contractors who want to release information that they have determined to be the product of fundamental research. This final rule does not place any reporting requirements on the release of fundamental research by DOE contractors.

17. Comment: Two respondents questioned the scope of the Export Restriction Notice requirement.

Response: The Export Restriction Notice requirement has been removed from the final rule because requirements for the use of such a notice are defined in 41 CFR 109 and do not need to be restated in this rule.

18. Comment: Three respondents recommended that DOE would be better served by providing educational materials to contractors to increase export compliance awareness.

Response: The purpose of the new rule is to direct DOE contractors to seek guidance from and to communicate with export licensing officers at appropriate export licensing agencies, and not to ask for export control compliance assistance from DOE Contracting Officers. Compliance training offices of Department of Commerce, Department of State and other agencies provide appropriate training on their respective export regulations. No change was made to the text as a result of this comment.

19. Comment: Two respondents believed that DOE may inadvertently assume liability because of requirements in the Export Clauses should a contractor be in non-compliance with export control requirements.

Response: DOE will not assume any liability due to inclusion of the Export Clauses in contracts or for contractor noncompliance with export control requirements. No change was made to the text as a result of this comment.

20. Comment: Eight respondents claimed that the proposed rule potentially increases DOE contractors' risk by specifically listing regulations in the contract. They also were concerned that contractors could be liable under the False Claims Act and other laws for their actions or for those of their subcontractors. If the contractor is not in compliance with export control regulations, it may also be subject to Qui Tam penalties, and the rule would make failure to comply with export regulations a contractual obligation. This liability may be assumed by the M&O contractor for all of its subcontractors, including lower-tier subcontractors.

Response: The Export Clauses in the final rule do not require reporting or written assurances. Contractors will not assume new liabilities due to insertion of the Export Clauses in DOE contracts.

21. Comment: One respondent claimed that the proposed rule potentially increases DOE contractors' risk by requiring the contractor to identify specific aspects of the contract governed by export laws.

Response: For the reasons stated previously, reporting and written assurance requirements have been removed from the final rule.

22. Comment: One respondent claimed that adoption of the proposed regulation would increase costs for DOE procurements.

Response: For the reasons stated previously, reporting requirements and written assurances have been removed from the final rule. The only de minimis costs associated with the final rule are costs to add the Export Clauses to solicitations and contracts. No further change was made to the text as a result of this comment.

23. Comment: One respondent believed that the rule affects 10 CFR part 810 procedures for contractors subject to that regulation.

Response: The proposed rule does not affect implementation of 10 CFR part 810 with respect to DOE program activities. No change was made to the text as a result of this comment.

24. Comment: One respondent claimed that DOE Contracting Officers will be required to submit all DOE contracts to the Office of Nonproliferation and International Security (NIS) of the National Nuclear Security Administration for 10 CFR part 810 review.

Response: The reporting requirements have been removed from the revised rule. The rule does not place any requirements on DOE Contracting Officers to submit contracts to the office now called the Office of Nonproliferation and Arms Control for 10 CFR part 810 review. No change was made to the text as a result of this comment.

25. Comment: Two respondents asked that this rule to be pursued in conjunction with the revised 10 CFR part 810.

Response: The final rule amending 10 CFR part 810 (part 810) was issued on February 23, 2015. 80 FR 9359 (Feb. 23, 2014). The purpose of that final rule and this final rule are different. Part 810 controls the export of unclassified nuclear technology and assistance, and is one of the export rules that may apply to contractors. It was revised to, among other things, reflect current global civil nuclear trade practices. The purpose of this rule final is to direct DOE contractors to seek guidance from and to communicate with export licensing officers at export licensing agencies regarding export rules such as 10 CFR part 810. No change was made to the text as a result of this comment.

26. Comment: Two respondents stated that the meaning of “transfer” is not clear.

Response: References to “transfers” have been removed from the final rule.

27. Comment: One respondent stated that the list of items to be transferred that are subject to the Notice is ambiguous.

Response: The Export Restriction Notice has been removed from the rule.

28. Comment: One respondent pointed out that DOE cites obsolete and unavailable references with regard to DoD directives. For instance, DOE lists DOE Order 580.1A which directs the reader to follow requirements in a DoD Demilitarization Manual 4160.21-M-1, that was cancelled and replaced. In addition, the replacement (DoD 4160.28-M series) directs users to obtain disposal guidance for ITAR items from Web sites that are available only to DoD components or those with .mil email addresses.

Response: References to specific DOE Orders in the rule have been removed. References in the NOPR were current at the time that it was published.

29. Comment: Six respondents recommended that the rule more closely follow the DoD example in the revised DFARS.

Response: The final rule has been revised consistent with June 17, 2013, changes to sections 225.79 and 252.225-7048 of the DFARS and the DFARS PGI-225.

30. Comment: One respondent disagreed with the implication in the Export Restriction Notice that all items are subject to export controls.

Response: The Export Restriction Notice has been removed from the final rule. As noted above, the phrase “subject to export controls” has been removed from the Export Clauses.

Today's regulatory action has been determined not to be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Accordingly, this rule is not subject to review under the Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to Executive Order 13563, issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281 (Jan. 21, 2011)). Executive Order 13563 is supplemental to, and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing, regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, agencies are required by Executive Order 13563 to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.

DOE emphasizes as well that Executive Order 13563 requires agencies to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. DOE believes that today's final rule is consistent with these principles, including the requirement that, to the extent permitted by law, agencies adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs and, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches maximize net benefits.

With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on Executive agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and promote simplification and burden reduction.

With regard to the review required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law; these proposed regulations meet the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

As required by Executive Order 13272, “Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,” 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990 (February 19, 2003), DOE has made its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General Counsel's Web site (http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel).

DOE certifies that this rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because the rule is intended only to recognize existing export control compliance obligations and to clarify the role of DOE and its contracting officers in relation to these requirements. The rule itself does not impose any new requirements on manufacturers. In addition, DOE notes that the reporting requirements referenced in the proposed rule have been eliminated from the final rule for the reasons discussed in response to the comments received on this issue. DOE transmitted this certification to the Small Business Administration (SBA) as required by 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

This final rule does not impose a collection of information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. DOE's procurement reporting and recordkeeping burdens have been approved under OMB Control No. 1910-4100.

DOE has concluded that promulgation of this final rule falls into a class of actions which would not individually or cumulatively have significant impact on the human environment, as determined by DOE's regulations (10 CFR part 1021, subpart D) implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Specifically, this final rule is categorically excluded from NEPA review because the amendments to the DEAR are strictly procedural (categorical exclusion A6). Therefore, this final rule does not require an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment pursuant to NEPA.

Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. Agencies are required to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and carefully assess the necessity for such actions. DOE has examined today's rule and has determined that it does not preempt State law and does not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) generally requires a Federal agency to perform a detailed assessment of costs and benefits of any rule imposing a Federal Mandate with costs to State, local or tribal governments, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. This rulemaking does not impose a Federal mandate on State, local or tribal governments or on the private sector.

Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277), requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule or policy that may affect family well being. This rule will have no impact on family well-being. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use”, 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution and use. Today's rule is not a significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under implementing guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed today's notice under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

Executive Order 13609 of May 1, 2012, “Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation,” requires that, to the extent permitted by law and consistent with the principles and requirements of Executive Order 13563 and Executive Order 12866, each Federal agency shall:

(a) If required to submit a Regulatory Plan pursuant to Executive Order 12866, include in that plan a summary of its international regulatory cooperation activities that are reasonably anticipated to lead to significant regulations, with an explanation of how these activities advance the purposes of Executive Order 13563 and this order;

(b) Ensure that significant regulations that the agency identifies as having significant international impacts are designated as such in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, on RegInfo.gov, and on Regulations.gov;

(c) In selecting which regulations to include in its retrospective review plan, as required by Executive Order 13563, consider:

(i) Reforms to existing significant regulations that address unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements between the United States and its major trading partners, consistent with section 1 of this order, when stakeholders provide adequate information to the agency establishing that the differences are unnecessary; and

(ii) Such reforms in other circumstances as the agency deems appropriate; and

(d) For significant regulations that the agency identifies as having significant international impacts, consider, to the extent feasible, appropriate, and consistent with law, any regulatory approaches by a foreign government that the United States has agreed to consider under a regulatory cooperation council work plan.

DOE has reviewed this final rule under the provisions of Executive Order 13609 and determined that the rule complies with all requirements set forth in the order.

The Office of the Secretary of Energy has approved issuance of this final rule.

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the promulgation of this rule prior to its effective date. The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

For reasons set out in the preamble, the DOE is amending Chapter 9 of Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below.