Federal Register Vol. 80, No.62,

On December 9, 2014, OPM issued a proposed rule (79 FR 72997) to abolish the Portland, Maine, appropriated fund FWS wage area and redefine Androscoggin, Cumberland, and Sagadahoc Counties, ME, to the Portsmouth, New Hampshire, survey area and Franklin and Oxford Counties, ME, and Coos County, NH, to the Portsmouth area of application. These changes are necessary because the closure of NAS Brunswick in May 2011 left the Portland wage area without an activity having the capability to conduct a local wage survey. The Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee, the national labor-management committee responsible for advising OPM on matters concerning the pay of FWS employees, made a majority recommendation to define the entire wage area to the Portsmouth wage area. The proposed rule had a 30-day comment period, during which OPM received no comments.

I certify that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they will affect only Federal agencies and employees.

Accordingly, OPM amends 5 CFR part 532 as follows:

This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 104 and Marketing Order No. 953, both as amended (7 CFR part 953), regulating the handling of Irish potatoes grown in Southeastern states, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect.

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

This rule continues the previous suspension of the marketing order regulating the handling of Irish potatoes grown in Southeastern states. Even though the Committee does not function under the suspended order and regulations, representatives of the Virginia/North Carolina Irish potato industry met on December 18, 2013, and requested that the suspension of all provisions of the order, and the rules and regulations implemented thereunder be continued through March 1, 2017. The request was based on the belief that the industry needs more time to study changes in the industry, and any new developments which could affect the need for, or status of, the order.

Marketing Order 953 has been in effect since 1948. The order provides for the establishment of grade, size, quality, maturity, and inspection requirements for Irish potatoes grown in Southeastern states. The order also authorizes reporting and recordkeeping functions required for the operation of the order. The order, when functioning, is funded by assessments imposed on handlers.

The Southeastern Potato Committee (Committee) members met on February 17, 2011, and unanimously recommended suspension of the marketing order for a three year period ending on March 1, 2014. They recommended the suspension to eliminate the expense of administering the marketing order, while determining the effects of not having regulations in place. The Committee members wanted the industry to have the alternative of reactivating the order, if deemed appropriate. The rule completing that action was published in the Federal Register on October 21, 2011 (76 FR 65360).

Prior to the December 18, 2013, meeting, USDA sent letters to members of the industry, most of whom were former Committee members. The letter informed them that the suspension of the order would be ending, and of the need to review the state of the industry and determine what action the industry wanted to take in regards to the order. The letter also asked that they make others in the industry aware of the upcoming decision and the opportunity to express their position on what to do with the order. USDA also sent out several follow-up emails, and made several telephone calls to industry representatives in an effort to increase participation in the meeting.

On December 18, 2013, industry representatives of the Virginia/North Carolina Irish potato industry met and unanimously recommended extending the suspension of the order for an additional three years. During their discussion, several industry members expressed concerns that the quality problems experienced prior to promulgation of the order could resurface and additional time was necessary to evaluate if the order is needed. The representatives believe extending the suspension for three more years would provide the industry with further opportunity to study changes in the industry and any new developments, which could affect the need for the order. The representatives also supported suspension rather than termination as they agreed it would be less complicated to reactivate the existing program if it is needed than to promulgate a new marketing order. Several of the industry representatives also indicated that they had spoken with other industry members who could not attend the meeting, and they too were in support of suspension. Therefore, this rule will suspend the order through March 1, 2017.

If the industry does not petition to have the order reactivated by the end of the suspension period, AMS will publish a proposal to terminate the order.

It is hereby determined that Federal Marketing Order No. 953, and the rules and regulations issued thereunder, do not tend effectuate the declared policy of the Act. This action suspends, through March 1, 2017, the provisions of Federal Marketing Order No. 953, and the rules and regulations issued thereunder, including but not limited to: Provisions of the order dealing with the establishment and the responsibilities of the Committee; provisions of the order dealing with expenses and the collection of assessments; all rules and regulations; and, all information collection and reporting requirements.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.

There are approximately 10 handlers of Irish potatoes grown in Southeastern states who are subject to regulation under the order and approximately 20 potato producers in the regulated area. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $7,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

Using prices reported by AMS' Market News Service, the average F.O.B. price for Southeastern potatoes for the 2012-13 marketing season was around $25 per hundredweight. USDA has estimated production for the 2012-13 season at approximately 600,000 hundredweight of potatoes. Based on this information, average annual receipts for handlers would be less than $7,000,000. Information provided by the National Agricultural Statistics Service indicates that the average producer price for Irish potatoes grown in North Carolina and Virginia in 2012 was approximately $12.16 per hundredweight. Considering estimated production, average producer revenue would be about $400,000 for the 2012-13 season. Therefore, the majority of Southeastern potato handlers and producers may be classified as small entities.

This rule continues the previous suspension of the order and the associated rules and regulations through March 1, 2017. At a meeting on February 17, 2011, the Committee recommended that the order and all of its provisions be suspended through March 1, 2014. The Committee made this decision based on questions regarding the continued need for the order and its associated costs. Industry representatives met on December 18, 2013, and unanimously recommended extending the suspension of the order for three additional years. The continued suspension was recommended to give the industry more time to study changes in the industry, and any new developments which could affect the need for, or the status of, the order. If the industry does not petition to have the order reactivated by the end of the suspension period, AMS will publish a proposal to terminate the order. Authority for this action is provided in section 8c(16)(A) of the Act.

Suspension of the order and its corresponding regulations relieves handlers of quality, inspection, and assessment burdens during the suspension period. Also, handler reports will not be required. Suspension of the order is therefore expected to reduce the regulatory burden on handlers and growers of all sizes.

Even though the Committee does not function under the suspended order and regulations, industry members met and considered two alternatives to this action at the December meeting. The first alternative was to reactivate the order. This alternative received little support as most believe the administrative costs of the order still outweighed the benefits. Industry members also considered terminating the order. However, some members indicated that quality concerns that the order had resolved could return and more time was needed to study changes within the industry. Therefore, both alternatives were rejected.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0178 Vegetable and Specialty Crops. No changes in those requirements are necessary as a result of this action.

This rule will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Southeastern Irish potato handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

AMS is committed to complying 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.

In addition, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.

Further, the industry's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Southeastern Irish potato industry and interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in industry deliberations. The December 18, 2013, meeting was an open meeting and entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this interim rule, including the regulatory and informational aspects of this action on small businesses.

A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Jeffrey Smutny at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

This rule invites comments on the continuation of the previous suspension of the marketing order regulating Irish potatoes grown in Southeastern states. Any comments received will be considered prior to finalization of this rule.

After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the industry's request, and other information, it is determined that Federal Marketing Order No. 953 suspended by this interim rule, as herein set forth, does not tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined upon good cause that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into effect and that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because: (1) This action suspends restrictions on handlers by continuing the previous suspension of Marketing Order No. 953; (2) this rule provides a 60-day comment period and any comments received will be considered prior to the finalization of this rule; (3) no useful purpose would be served by delaying the continued suspension of the order.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, under the authority of 7 U.S.C. 601-674, 7 CFR part 953 is suspended effective April 2, 2015, through March 1, 2017.

The FAA has determined, in accordance with 5 U.S. Code §§ 553(b)(3)(B) and 553(d)(3), that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are unnecessary because the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon issuance.

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

We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

On October 11, 2006, Honda Aircraft Company applied for a type certificate for their new Model HA-420 aircraft. On October 10, 2013, Honda Aircraft Company requested an extension with an effective application date of October 1, 2013. This extension changed the type certification basis to amendment 23-62.

The HA-420 is a four to five passenger (depending on configuration), two crew, lightweight business jet with a 43,000-foot service ceiling and a maximum takeoff weight of 9963 pounds. The airplane is powered by two GE-Honda Aero Engines (GHAE) HF-120 turbofan engines.

The HA-420 design incorporates the installation of a side-facing belted passenger seat as a customer configuration option. The implication of the term belted is that the passenger seat will be used during takeoff and landing and so must comply with the provisions of §§ 23.562, 23.785, and any additional requirements that the FAA determines are applicable. In this case, the approval of a side-facing seat to these provisions is considered new and novel and as such will require special conditions and specific methods of compliance to certificate.

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Honda Aircraft Company must show that the HA-420 meets the applicable provisions of part 23, as amended by amendment 23-1, dated July 29, 1965, through amendment 23-62, dated December 2, 2011, thereto.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 23) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the HA-420 because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the HA-420 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36. In addition, the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”

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

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

The HA-420 will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature: Side facing passenger seat intended for taxi/takeoff and landing.

The seat is to incorporate design features that reduce the potential for injury in the event of an accident. In a severe impact, a 2-point seatbelt and the adjacent padded wall will restrain the occupant. In addition to the design features intended to minimize occupant injury during an accident sequence, the adjacent forward wall/bulkhead interior structure will have padding or at least be pliable enough to absorb impact energy, which will provide some protection to the head of the occupant.

The Code of Federal Regulations states performance criteria for forward and aft facing seats and restraints in an objective manner. However, none of these criteria are adequate to address the specific issues raised concerning side-facing seats. Therefore, the FAA has determined that, in addition to the requirements of parts 21 and 23, special conditions are needed to address the installation of this seat installation/restraint.

Part 23 was amended August 8, 1988, by amendment 23-36, revised the emergency landing conditions that must be considered in the design of the airplane. Amendment 23-36 revised the static load conditions in § 23.561 and added a new § 23.562 that required dynamic testing for all seats approved for occupancy during takeoff and landing. The intent of amendment 23-36 is to provide an improved level of safety for occupants on part 23 airplanes. Because most seating is forward-facing in part 23 airplanes, the pass/fail criteria developed in amendment 23-36 focused primarily on these forward- and aft-facing seats. Since the regulations do not address side-facing seats, these criteria should be documented in special conditions.

The FAA decision to review compliance with these regulations stems from the fact that the current regulations do not provide adequate and appropriate standards for the type certification of this type of seat. These requirements are substantially similar to other single place side-facing seat installations approved for use on several different part 23 and part 25 aircraft.

Accordingly, these special conditions are for the Honda Aircraft Company model HA-420 side-facing seat location. Other conditions may be developed, as needed, based on further FAA review and discussions with the manufacturer and civil aviation authorities.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the HA-420. Should Honda Aircraft Company apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability and it affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane.

The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances, identified above, and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are unnecessary and the FAA finds good cause, in accordance with 5 U.S. Code §§ 553(b)(3)(B) and 553(d)(3), making these special conditions effective upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Honda Aircraft Company model HA-420 airplanes.

In addition to the airworthiness standards in §§ 23.562, amendment 23-50 and 23.785, amendment 23-49, the following special condition provides injury criteria and installation/testing guidelines that represent the minimum acceptable airworthiness standard for single-place side-facing seats:

(1) Existing Criteria: All injury protection criteria of § 23.562(c)(1) through (c)(7) apply to the occupant of a side-facing seat. Head Injury Criterion (HIC) assessments are only required for head contact with the seat and/or adjacent structures.

(2) Body-to-Wall/Furnishing Contact: The seat must be installed aft of a structure such as an interior wall or furnishing that will support the pelvis, upper arm, chest, and head of an occupant seated next to the structure. A conservative representation of the structure and its stiffness must be included in the tests. It is recommended, but not required, that the contact surface of this structure be covered with at least two inches of energy absorbing protective padding (foam or equivalent), such as Ensolite.

(3) Thoracic Trauma: Thoracic Trauma Index (TTI) injury criterion must be substantiated by dynamic test or by rational analysis based on previous test(s) of a similar seat installation. Testing must be conducted with a Side Impact Dummy (SID), as defined by 49 CFR part 572, subpart F, or its equivalent. TTI must be less than 85, as defined in 49 CFR part 572, subpart F. SID TTI data must be processed as defined in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) part 571.214, section S6.13.5.

(4) Pelvis: Pelvic lateral acceleration must be shown by dynamic test or by rational analysis based on previous test(s) of a similar seat installation to not exceed 130g. Pelvic acceleration data must be processed as defined in FMVSS part 571.214, section S6.13.5.

(5) Shoulder Strap Loads: Where upper torso straps (shoulder straps) are used for occupants, tension loads in individual straps must not exceed 1,750 pounds. If dual straps are used for restraining the upper torso, the total strap tension loads must not exceed 2,000 pounds.

(1) One longitudinal test with the SID ATD or its equivalent, un-deformed floor, no yaw, and with all lateral structural supports (armrests/walls).

Pass/fail injury assessments: TTI and pelvic acceleration.

(2) One longitudinal test with the Hybrid II ATD, deformed floor, with 10 degrees yaw, and with all lateral structural supports (armrests/walls).

Pass/fail injury assessments: HIC; and upper torso restraint load, restraint system retention and pelvic acceleration.

(3) A vertical (15 G's) test is to be conducted with modified Hybrid II ATDs using existing pass/fail criteria.

The FAA has determined, in accordance with 5 U.S. Code §§ 553(b)(3)(B) and 553(d)(3), that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are unnecessary because the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon issuance.

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

We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

On October 11, 2006, Honda Aircraft Company applied for a type certificate for their new Model HA-420. On October 10, 2013, Honda Aircraft Company requested an extension with an effective application date of October 1, 2013. This extension changed the type certification basis to amendment 23-62.

The HA-420 is a four to five passenger (depending on configuration), two crew, lightweight business jet with a 43,000-foot service ceiling and a maximum takeoff weight of 9963 pounds. The airplane is powered by two GE-Honda Aero Engines (GHAE) HF-120 turbofan engines.

The HA-420 airplane will use an electronic engine control system (FADEC) instead of a traditional mechanical control system. Even though the engine control system will be certificated as part of the engine, the installation of an engine with an electronic control system requires evaluation due to critical environmental effects and possible effects on or by other airplane systems. For example, indirect effects of lightning, radio interference with other airplane electronic systems, shared engine and airplane data and power sources.

The regulatory requirements in 14 CFR part 23 for evaluating the installation of complex systems, including electronic systems and critical environmental effects, are contained in § 23.1309. However, when § 23.1309 was developed, the use of electronic control systems for engines was not envisioned. Therefore, § 23.1309 requirements were not applicable to systems certificated as part of the engine (reference § 23.1309(f)(1)). Parts of the system that are not certificated with the engine could be evaluated using the criteria of § 23.1309. However, the integral nature of these systems makes it unfeasible to evaluate the airplane portion of the system without including the engine portion of the system.

In some cases, the airplane that the engine is used in will determine a higher classification than the engine controls are certificated for; requiring the FADEC systems be analyzed at a higher classification. As of November 2005, FADEC special conditions mandated the classification for § 23.1309 analyses for loss of FADEC control as catastrophic for any airplane using FADEC. This is not to imply an engine failure is classified as catastrophic, but that the digital engine control must provide an equivalent reliability to mechanical engine controls.

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Honda Aircraft Company must show that the HA-420 meets the applicable provisions of part 23, as amended by amendments 23-1 through 23-62, thereto.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 23) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the model HA-420 because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the HA-420 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36. In addition, the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy pursuant to § 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”

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

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of § 21.101(a)(1).

The HA-420 will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: Electronic engine control system.

As defined in the summary section, this airplane makes use of an electronic engine control system instead of a traditional mechanical control system is a novel design for this type of airplane. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. Mandating a structured assessment to determine potential installation issues mitigates the concerns that the addition of a full authority engine controller does not produce a failure condition not previously considered.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the model HA-420. Should Honda Aircraft Company apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on the model HA-420 airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability and it affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane.

The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances, identified above, and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are unnecessary and the FAA finds good cause, in accordance with 5 U.S. Code §§ 553(b)(3)(B) and 553(d)(3), making these special conditions effective upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Honda Aircraft Company model HA-420 airplanes.

a. The installation of the electronic engine control system must comply with the requirements of § 23.1309(a) through (d) at amendment 23-62. The intent of this requirement is not to reevaluate the inherent hardware reliability of the control itself, but rather determine the effects, including environmental effects addressed in § 23.1306 and 23.1308 on the airplane systems and engine control system when installing the control on the airplane. When appropriate, engine certification data may be used when showing compliance with this requirement; however, the effects of the installation on this data must be addressed.

b. For these evaluations, the loss of FADEC control will be analyzed utilizing the threat levels associated with a catastrophic failure.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The collection of information contained in these final regulations has been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507) under control number 1545-1699. The collection of information in these final regulations is in paragraphs (c)(4), (c)(5)(iii), (c)(6)(i)(B), (c)(6)(ii), (c)(6)(iv), (c)(7)(i)(A), (c)(7)(i)(B), (c)(7)(ii), and (f)(3) of § 1.1502-77. The collection of information is necessary to make certain that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Commissioner), agent for the consolidated group, and members of the group are each informed of the proper identity of the agent for any given period, and are able to timely exercise their privileges and fulfill their responsibilities with respect to the filing of a consolidated return.

For more information, see Rev. Proc. 2015-26, IRB 2015-15, the revenue procedure published to accompany the final regulations that provides instructions with respect to all communications relating to the identification of an agent for a consolidated group.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget.

Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and return information are confidential, as required by section 6103.

This Treasury Decision contains final regulations that amend 26 CFR part 1, under section 1502 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Code) (Final Regulations). Section 1502 authorizes the Secretary to prescribe regulations for corporations that join in filing consolidated returns and provides that such rules may be different from the provisions of chapter 1 of subtitle A of the Code that would apply if such corporations filed separate returns. These Final Regulations provide guidance under § 1.1502-77 with respect to the agent for a group of affiliated corporations that file a consolidated return (agent), including rules for identifying and communicating with the agent, and determining the scope of the agent's authority.

The Final Regulations apply to consolidated return years beginning on or after April 1, 2015. Regulations in effect before April 1, 2015 will continue to apply to consolidated tax years beginning before April 1, 2015.

Contemporaneously with the publication of the Final Regulations in the Federal Register, the IRS is issuing Rev. Proc. 2015-26, IRB 2015-15, providing instructions regarding the manner of making all communications that relate to the identification of an agent under the Final Regulations. Rev. Proc. 2015-26, IRB 2015-15, will obsolete Rev. Proc. 2002-43, 2002-2 CB 99 (see § 601.601(d)(2)(ii)(b) of this chapter) (Determination of Substitute Agent for a Consolidated Group When the Common Parent Ceases to Exist) with respect to consolidated return years for which these Final Regulations apply. Thus, Rev. Proc. 2002-43 will continue to apply for consolidated return years subject to prior regulations.

On June 28, 2002, the IRS and the Treasury Department promulgated final regulations under § 1.1502-77 in TD 9002, 67 FR 43538, to provide rules concerning the identity and authority of the agent and the designation of a new agent. These regulations were amended by TD 9255 (71 FR 13001) (March 14, 2006) and TD 9343 (72 FR 40066) (July 23, 2007). (The June 28, 2002 regulations and amendments are collectively referred to in this preamble as the 2002 Regulations.)

On June 29, 2002, the IRS released Rev. Proc. 2002-43 to prescribe instructions for all communications relating to the determination of a substitute agent and the designation of a substitute agent by a terminating common parent.

On May 30, 2012, the IRS and the Treasury Department proposed regulations that would replace the 2002 Regulations (2012 Proposed Regulations). The 2012 Proposed Regulations were published in the Federal Register (77 FR 31786). No request for a hearing was received. One comment was received with respect to the 2012 Proposed Regulations, but it made no specific recommendations. No other comments were received, including with respect to the specific request for comments regarding the expansion of the circumstances in which the Commissioner could designate agents, and the ability of an agent to resign.

Under the 2002 Regulations, the common parent of a group ceased to be the agent if its existence terminated under applicable law, if it became disregarded as an entity separate from its owner for federal tax purposes (a disregarded entity), or if it became an entity classified as a partnership for federal tax purposes. In such cases, the common parent could generally designate its successor, another member of the group, or a group member's successor as the substitute agent for the group (provided such designee was a domestic corporation for federal tax purposes). However, any such designation required affirmative approval by the Commissioner.

Although in general a common parent must be a domestic corporation, a common parent could be an entity created or organized under the laws of a foreign country and treated as a domestic corporation by reason of section 7874 (treating a foreign corporation as a domestic corporation as a result of certain outbound inversion transactions) or an election under section 953(d) to treat a foreign insurance company as a domestic corporation (foreign common parent). In recognition of the logistical problems this could create, the 2002 Regulations permitted the Commissioner to designate a domestic member of the group to act as the agent (domestic substitute agent) in the case of a foreign common parent.

Finally, the 2002 Regulations provided certain rules relating to partnerships and partners subject to sections 6221 through 6234 of the Code, enacted by section 402 of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (96 Stat. 324) (TEFRA), generally providing that the Commissioner would deal directly with a member that was the tax matters partner (TMP) regarding specified matters for the partners in a TEFRA partnership even if the TMP is not the agent.

The 2012 Proposed Regulations retained the general rules, concepts, and examples of the 2002 Regulations. However, the 2012 Proposed Regulations renumbered, restructured, and revised the 2002 Regulations to minimize the circumstances under which the identity of the agent would not be clear. The 2012 Proposed Regulations also increased the number of situations in which the identity of the agent would be determined without action by taxpayers or the Commissioner. The proposed changes are described in the following paragraphs 4.A. through 4.G.

The 2002 Regulations generally permitted a terminating agent to designate the substitute agent. However, the IRS observed that terminating agents, to the extent they designated at all, tended to designate their successors rather than another member of their group. To simplify the procedures and align them with taxpayers' practices, the 2012 Proposed Regulations provided that if an agent had a sole successor (default successor), the default successor would automatically become the group's agent when the prior agent ceased to exist, such as in a merger. The terminating agent would not be permitted to designate an agent unless there was no default successor, in which case the agent could only designate an entity that was a member of the group for the consolidated return year (or a successor of such a member). The 2012 Proposed Regulations also prescribed limited circumstances under which the Commissioner could replace a default successor.

The 2012 Proposed Regulations included disregarded entities and partnerships among the entities permitted to be agents for prior years in which they or their predecessors were not treated as disregarded. Thus, if a common parent converted or merged into a disregarded entity or partnership, whether by reason of a state law merger, a state law conversion, or a federal tax election, the continuing or successor juridical entity (whether a disregarded entity or partnership) would continue as the agent for the prior periods.

In general, the Code and regulations governing the treatment of TEFRA partnerships provide that the Commissioner will deal with the TMP regarding specified matters for the partners in a TEFRA partnership. See generally, sections 6221 through 6234. The 2002 Regulations provided two TEFRA specific rules relating to members that were partners in a TEFRA partnership. Under the first rule, a subsidiary that was the TMP of a TEFRA partnership would act in its own name regarding partnership matters, without requiring any action by the agent. Under the second rule, the Commissioner would deal with a subsidiary that was a partner in a TEFRA partnership in the performance of an examination of the TEFRA partnership. This second rule, however, appeared to create some confusion in the context of other provisions of the 2002 Regulations.

To provide more clarity with respect to the second rule, the 2012 Proposed Regulations provided that: (1) The agent will generally act as agent for a member that is a partner in a TEFRA partnership regarding all matters related to the partnership, including execution of a settlement agreement under section 6224(c) (as illustrated in Example 12 in § 1.1502-77(g) of the 2012 Proposed Regulations) and extension of the statute of limitations with respect to items other than the items of the TEFRA partnership (as illustrated in Example 11 in § 1.1502-77(g) of the 2012 Proposed Regulations); and (2) the Commissioner, without having to deal with each member separately by “breaking agency” pursuant to § 1.1502-77(f)(2)(i) of the 2012 Proposed Regulations, may communicate directly with a subsidiary or a disregarded entity owned by a subsidiary that is a partner in a TEFRA partnership whenever the Commissioner determines that such direct communication will facilitate the conduct of an examination, appeal, or settlement with respect to the partnership. However, like the 2002 Regulations, the 2012 Proposed Regulations provided that any member of the group designated as the TMP of a TEFRA partnership will act in its own name and perform its responsibilities with respect to the partnership without requiring any action by the agent.

Although the 2002 Regulations required the Commissioner to approve any designation, in practice, designation approval requests were denied only rarely. To simplify procedures, and thereby conserve resources and enhance efficiency, the 2012 Proposed Regulations eliminated the requirement. However, to ensure that IRS records accurately reflect the identity of an agent, the 2012 Proposed Regulations provided that a default successor, or a terminating agent that has no default successor, must notify the IRS (in writing in the manner prescribed by the Commissioner) when the default successor or an entity designated by a terminating agent becomes the group's new agent.

The 2012 Proposed Regulations provided several limited circumstances in which the Commissioner could designate or replace an agent, either on its own initiative or at the request of other members. Examples were included in the 2012 Proposed Regulations to illustrate the circumstances in which an agent may be designated.

The 2012 Proposed Regulations did not provide the Commissioner with the ability to replace a domestic default successor under circumstances in which it could not replace the common parent.

As previously noted, the 2002 Regulations did not preclude foreign entities from acting as agent, but provided that the Commissioner could designate a domestic substitute agent. The IRS and the Treasury Department recognize that such an entity may have the best access to information, but also that these situations present unique logistical issues. Accordingly, the 2012 Proposed Regulations did not preclude a foreign entity from being the agent and preserved the Commissioner's discretion to replace a foreign entity.

Questions arose under the 2002 Regulations with respect to the actions that could be performed by a terminating agent during the “winding up” period following its dissolution. Because winding up statutes vary widely among the states, the IRS and the Treasury Department determined that no single rule for post-dissolution terminating agents would be appropriate in all cases. The 2012 Proposed Regulations resolved the issue by providing that an entity that has dissolved or otherwise ceased to exist under applicable law can no longer be the agent, irrespective of its powers under state or local law during its post-dissolution winding up period.

The rules adopted in these Final Regulations are consistent with those set forth in the 2012 Proposed Regulations. The Final Regulations, however, make several revisions to the 2012 Proposed Regulations. First, as further described in section 5.A. of this preamble, the Final Regulations expand the circumstances under which the Commissioner may replace an agent on the Commissioner's own accord. Second, the Final Regulations clarify that a terminating agent without a default successor may only designate an agent with respect to a completed year. See section 5.A.iii. of this preamble. Third, the Final Regulations organize the provisions that permit the Commissioner to designate an agent into two categories: (1) Those provisions that authorize the Commissioner to replace an agent on the Commissioner's own accord, with or without a written request from a member; and (2) a provision described in section 5.B. of this preamble permitting the Commissioner to replace an agent pursuant to a member's written request. Fourth, as described in section 5.C. of this preamble, the Final Regulations allow an agent to resign under certain circumstances. Fifth, the Final Regulations clarify that an agent other than the common parent generally serves as agent under the same terms and with the same rights as the common parent. A significant exception to this general rule discussed in section 5.A.iii. of this preamble applies in the case of an agent designated by the Commissioner, in that such an agent may not designate an agent upon its termination unless the Commissioner designated the agent solely because a prior agent terminated without a default successor and without designating an agent (other than in the case of a group structure change as defined in § 1.1502-33(f)(1)).

In addition, the Final Regulations contain clarifying and non-substantive changes to the text of the 2012 Proposed Regulations and redesignate the 2002 Regulations as § 1.1502-77B (§ 1.1502-77A continues to apply for consolidated return years beginning before June 28, 2002).

The Final Regulations prescribe four circumstances in which the Commissioner may designate an agent on the Commissioner's own accord. Three of the circumstances are adopted from the 2012 Proposed Regulations: The Commissioner may designate an agent if (1) a terminating agent has no default successor and fails to designate an agent; (2) the Commissioner believes that the agent or its default successor exists but such entity fails to timely respond to notices properly sent by the Commissioner; or (3) the agent is or becomes a foreign entity (for example, through the agent's continuance into a foreign jurisdiction or certain transactions subject to the inversion rules of section 7874). The Final Regulations add an additional situation to the second circumstance so that the Commissioner may designate an agent where the agent either fails timely respond to notices or fails to perform its obligations as agent. Finally, the Final Regulations add a fourth circumstance: The Commissioner may designate a new agent for a current year if a previously designated agent ceases to be a member of the group.

The IRS and the Treasury Department recognize that there may be situations in which an agent is failing to perform its obligations as agent under the Code or regulations. Neither the 2002 Regulations nor the 2012 Proposed Regulations provided a remedy to designate an agent in such situations. As a result, members would not be able to accurately file a return, determine their federal tax liability, or obtain refunds, and the Commissioner might have to deal with each member separately by “breaking agency” pursuant to § 1.1502-77(f)(2)(i) of the 2012 Proposed Regulations. This could, in turn, result in significant uncertainty and undue burden for group members as well as the Commissioner. For example, assume the Commissioner breaks agency for a consolidated return year that has ended (completed year) and then one or more members files a claim for refund of income taxes paid for that year. Because of the uncertainty as to which member(s) would be entitled to all or a portion of the refund, the Government would likely be forced to interplead all potential member-claimants in an ensuing refund case.

The preamble to the 2012 Proposed Regulations requested comments with respect to this issue, but no comments were received. Nevertheless, the IRS and the Treasury Department have considered this issue and determined that the best interests of all concerned would be served by providing the Commissioner the authority to replace an agent that fails to perform its obligations as agent as prescribed by federal tax law. Accordingly, the Final Regulations provide that the Commissioner may, with or without a written request from a member, designate an agent to replace any agent that fails to perform its obligations as agent as prescribed by the Code or regulations promulgated thereunder.

The 2012 Proposed Regulations did not provide guidance for situations in which an agent previously designated by the Commissioner ceases to be a member during a consolidated return year that is not a completed year (current year). Thus, under the 2012 Proposed Regulations, there could be situations in which a group would have a non-member agent or no agent at all. The Final Regulations address these issues by requiring that the agent for the current year be a member of the group. An agent designated by the Commissioner will generally continue as the agent in successive consolidated return years except in three circumstances: (1) If the Commissioner specifies a limited or specific period of agency in the designation; (2) if the agent ceases to be a member of the group; or (3) if the agent is replaced pursuant to the Final Regulations.

The Final Regulations also provide an additional circumstance in which the Commissioner may designate an agent on the Commissioner's own accord. Specifically, the Final Regulations permit the Commissioner, with or without a written request from a member, to designate an agent for the current year if an agent previously designated by the Commissioner ceases to be a member of the group without leaving a default successor in the group. In that situation, a member of the group should request that the Commissioner designate an agent.

The Proposed Regulations permitted an agent that terminates without a default successor to designate an agent. If a terminating agent had no default successor and failed to designate an agent, the Commissioner could designate an agent with or without the request of any member. The Final Regulations generally adopt these rules with one significant modification. If a terminating agent was itself designated by the Commissioner on the Commissioner's own accord and the terminating agent does not have a default successor, the Final Regulations provide that the terminating agent is not permitted to designate an agent if it was designated because the agent it replaced (1) ceased to be a member of the group in a current year; (2) failed to timely respond to notices or failed to fulfill its obligations under the Code or regulations; or (3) became a foreign entity. Because the Commissioner's ability to administer the tax law is impaired under these circumstances, the IRS and the Treasury Department determined that the interests of tax administration would be best served by monitoring of designated agents and groups in these limited cases. Accordingly, the IRS and the Treasury Department determined that the Commissioner, rather than the terminating agent, should designate the agent in these situations. In such cases, any member (including the terminating agent) of the group is permitted to request that the Commissioner designate a new agent. The Final Regulations permit other categories of agents previously designated by the Commissioner to designate an agent upon termination provided the terminating agent does not (1) have a default successor or (2) terminate in a group structure change. The Final Regulations clarify that a terminating agent that is permitted to designate an agent may only do so with respect to completed years.

Finally, to prevent groups from nullifying a designation made by the Commissioner, the Final Regulations provide that a designating agent may not designate as an agent any entity that the Commissioner previously replaced as agent. The designating agent may, however, submit a request that the Commissioner designate as agent the entity previously replaced as agent.

The 2002 Regulations and the 2012 Proposed Regulations provided a mechanism whereby upon the written request from a member, the Commissioner could, but was not required to, replace an agent previously designated by the Commissioner. The Final Regulations retain this provision to permit a member to request that the Commissioner designate a new agent in circumstances other than the specifically enumerated circumstances in which the Commissioner may designate an agent on the Commissioner's own accord.

Under the 2002 Regulations, a common parent remained the agent for any year for which it was the common parent, with only a termination of the common parent terminating that agency. However, the IRS and the Treasury Department recognize that there could be circumstances in which an agent would want to resign and have another entity take its place as agent. For example, assume P, the common parent of the P consolidated group, becomes a subsidiary of the group in a transaction under § 1.1502-75(d) (resulting in a group structure change described in § 1.1502-33(f)(1)), and the group continues with N as the new common parent and agent. If unrelated X acquires the stock of P, P would leave the group but would still be the agent for the years during which it was the group's common parent. In that situation, it might be more efficient for all concerned if P were to resign as agent in favor of another member. Although the 2012 Proposed Regulations did not include a mechanism for an existing agent to resign, the preamble to the 2012 Proposed Regulations requested comments with respect to this issue. No comments were received. Nevertheless, the IRS and the Treasury Department have considered the issue and determined that it would be in the best interests of all concerned and sound tax administration for agents to have the ability to resign, at least in limited situations.

Accordingly, the Final Regulations provide a mechanism for agents to resign with respect to completed years. However, there are four conditions that must be met. First, the agent must provide written notice to the Commissioner that it no longer intends to be the agent for a completed year. Second, an entity that could have been designated by the resigning agent upon its termination must consent, in writing, to be the agent for that year. Third, immediately after its resignation takes effect, the resigning agent must not be the agent for the current year. Fourth, the Commissioner must not object to the agent's resignation. If these conditions are satisfied, the new agent must notify each member of the group that it has become the agent.

The Final Regulations apply to consolidated return years beginning on or after April 1, 2015. The 2002 Regulations, redesignated as § 1.1502-77B, and Rev. Proc. 2002-43 continue to apply with respect to consolidated return years beginning on or after June 28, 2002, and before April 1, 2015. However, the new rules permitting the resignation of agents may be relied upon for completed years otherwise governed by the 2002 Regulations (or any predecessor regulations).

It has been determined that this Treasury Decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It is hereby certified that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based on the fact that these regulations will affect affiliated groups of corporations that have elected to file consolidated returns, which tend to be larger entities. Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, the proposed regulations preceding these final regulations were submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business, and no comments were received.

The principal author of these final regulations is Richard M. Heinecke, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Corporate). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development.

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:

The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the S64 drawbridge, that once required draw operations in 33 CFR 117.639, was replaced with a fixed bridge in 2006. Therefore, the regulation is no longer applicable and shall be removed from publication. It is unnecessary to publish an NPRM because this regulatory action does not purport to place any restrictions on mariners but rather removes a restriction that has no further use or value.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective in less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. The bridge has been a fixed bridge for 9 years and this rule merely requires an administrative change to the Federal Register, in order to omit a regulatory requirement that is no longer applicable or necessary. The modification has already taken place and the removal of the regulation will not affect mariners currently operating on this waterway. Therefore, a delayed effective date is unnecessary.

The S64 drawbridge across the Ontonagon River, mile 0.2, was removed and replaced with a fixed bridge in 2006. It has come to the attention of the Coast Guard that the governing regulation for this drawbridge was never removed subsequent to the removal of the drawbridge and completion of the fixed bridge that replaced it. The elimination of this drawbridge necessitates the removal of the drawbridge operation regulation, 33 CFR 117.639,that pertained to the former drawbridge.

The purpose of this rule is to remove 33 CFR 117.639 from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) since it governs a bridge that is no longer able to be opened.

The Coast Guard is changing the regulation in 33 CFR 117.639 by removing restrictions and the regulatory burden related to the draw operations for this bridge that is no longer a drawbridge. The change removes the regulation governing the S64 drawbridge since the bridge has been replaced with a fixed bridge. This Final Rule seeks to update the CFR by removing language that governs the operation of the S64 drawbridge, which in fact is no longer a drawbridge. This change does not affect waterway or land traffic.

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

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

The Coast Guard does not consider this rule to be “significant” under that Order because it is an administrative change and does not affect the way vessels operate on the waterway.

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

This rule will have no effect on small entities since this drawbridge has been replaced with a fixed bridge and the regulation governing draw operations for this bridge is no longer applicable. There is no new restriction or regulation being imposed by this rule; therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves removing drawbridge operating regulations. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.

Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule.

Bridges.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

To view the final rule published on January 30, 2015 (80 FR 5282), or other documents in the docket for this rulemaking, go to www.regulations.gov, type the docket number, USCG-2005-21869, in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Open Docket Folder” in the first item listed. Use the following link to go directly to the docket: www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=USCG-2005-21869.

On January 30, 2015, the Coast Guard published a final rule to expand the applicability of notice of arrival and automatic identification system (AIS) requirements and make related amendments regarding AIS. 80 FR 5282. We have identified two errors in this correction document.

In the final rule, we revised the definition of “VTS User” (Vessel Traffic Service User) in 33 CFR 161.2. 80 FR 5334. Paragraph (3) of that definition should only have included vessels required to install and use a Coast Guard type-approved AIS, instead the definition included all vessels equipped with a Coast Guard type-approved AIS whether it is required or not. The definition published in the final rule is inconsistent with the discussion in the preambles of both the NPRM and final rule which encourage all vessel owners to use AIS. 73 FR 76295, 76301, December 16, 2008; and 80 FR 5311, Jan. 30, 2015. The definition of “VTS User” in the final rule is also inconsistent with our authority to impose VTS User requirements.

Also in the final rule at paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of 33 CFR 164.46, we omitted the word “self-propelled” when describing vessels certificated to carry more than 150 passengers that are required to have on board a properly installed, operational Coast Guard type-approved AIS Class A device. 80 FR 5335. As indicated in the final rule preamble (80 FR 5307, January 30, 2015) and the NPRM proposed rule (73 FR 76317, December 16, 2008), we intended to limit the applicability of § 164.46(b)(1)(iii) to self-propelled vessels.

As discussed above, the published definition of “VTS User” in 33 CFR 161.2 and AIS applicability paragraph (b)(1)(iii) in § 164.46 each contain an error which is misleading and needs to be corrected.

Accordingly, 33 CFR parts 161 and 164 are corrected by making the following correcting amendments:

EPA proposed on September 29, 2014, to approve the California Regional Haze Plan 2014 Progress Report (“Progress Report” or “Report”) as a revision to the California RH SIP.1 CARB submitted the Progress Report to EPA on June 16, 2014, to address the RHR requirements at 40 CFR 51.308(g), (h), and (i). As described in our proposal, CARB demonstrated that the emission control measures in the existing California RH SIP are sufficient to enable California, as well as other states with Class I areas affected by emissions from sources in California, to meet all established visibility goals (known as reasonable progress goals or RPGs) for 2018. Based on our evaluation of the Report, we proposed to approve CARB's determination that the California RH SIP requires no substantive revision at this time. We also proposed to find that CARB fulfilled the requirements in 51.308(i)(2), (3), and (4) to provide Federal Land Managers (FLMs) with an opportunity to consult on the RH SIP revision, describe how CARB addressed the FLMs' comments, and provide procedures for continuing the consultation. Please refer to our proposed rule for background information on the RHR, the California RH SIP, and the specific requirements for Progress Reports.

EPA's proposed action provided for a public comment period that, upon request, was extended to 60 days ending on November 28, 2014.2 We received one set of comments from the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA).3 NPCA's comments and our responses are summarized below.

For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:

Eight years after an area is redesignated to attainment, Clean Air Act (CAA) section 175A(b) requires the state to submit a subsequent maintenance plan to EPA, covering a second 10-year period.1 This maintenance plan must demonstrate continued compliance with the NAAQS during this second 10-year period. On July 13, 2011, the Governor of Montana's designee submitted to EPA a second 10-year maintenance plan for the Great Falls area for the CO NAAQS.

Along with the revised Great Falls Maintenance Plan, the State submitted a CO maintenance plan for the Billings, Montana maintenance area, and an alternative strategy for monitoring continued attainment of the CO NAAQS in all of the State's CO maintenance areas on July 13, 2011.2 The State submitted the alternative monitoring strategy in order to conserve resources by discontinuing the gaseous CO ambient monitors in both the Billings and Great Falls CO maintenance areas. We commented on the State's “Alternative Monitoring Strategy,” and the State submitted a revised version of the strategy, which incorporated our comments on June 22, 2012.

In a document published on December 1, 2014, we proposed approval of the Great Falls second 10-year maintenance plan and the associated “Alternative Monitoring Strategy.” (79 FR 71057)

The comment period for our December 1, 2014 proposed rule was open for 30 days. We did not receive any comments on the proposed action.

EPA is approving the revised Great Falls Maintenance Plan submitted on July 13, 2011. This maintenance plan meets the applicable CAA requirements and EPA has determined it is sufficient to provide for maintenance of the CO NAAQS over the course of the second 10-year maintenance period out to 2022.

EPA is also approving the State's Alternative Monitoring Strategy, submitted on June 22, 2012, for the Great Falls CO maintenance area. We are not approving application of the Alternative Monitoring Strategy in other areas of Montana with this action, as the Alternative Monitoring Strategy must be considered on a case-by-case basis specific to the circumstances of each particular CO maintenance area rather than broadly.

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, 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 EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications 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. 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 June 1, 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 to read as follows:

I. Background

The SIP is a living document which a state revises as necessary to address its unique air pollution problems. Therefore, the EPA, from time to time, must take action on SIP revisions containing new and/or revised regulations as being part of the SIP. On May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968), the EPA revised the procedures for incorporating by reference Federally-approved SIPs, as a result of consultations between the EPA and the Office of the Federal Register (OFR). The description of the revised SIP document, IBR procedures and “Identification of plan” format are discussed in further detail in the May 22, 1997, Federal Register document. On January 25, 2005 (70 FR 9450), the EPA published a Federal Register document beginning the new IBR procedure for Idaho. On December 28, 2012 (77 FR 76417), the EPA published an update to the IBR material for Idaho.

Since the publication of the last IBR update, the EPA approved into the Idaho SIP the following regulatory changes: 1

1. IDAPA 58.01.01 (Rules for the Control of Air pollution in Idaho): section 624.

2. City and County Ordinances: City of Sandpoint Chapter 8 Air Quality (4-8-1 through 4-8-14), City of Clifton Ordinance No. 120, City of Dayton Ordinance #287, Franklin City Ordinance No. 2012-9-12, Franklin County Ordinance No. 2012-6-25, City of Oxford Memorandum of Understanding, City of Preston Ordinance No. 2012-1, City of Weston Ordinance No. 2012-01.

3. EPA-Approved Idaho Source-Specific Requirements: The Amalgamated Sugar Company LLC—Nampa Factory, Nampa, Idaho (Permit No. T2-2009.0105, date issued 12/23/2011).

IDAPA 58.01.01 (Rules for the Control of Air pollution in Idaho): sections 006, 107, 220, 222, 617, 618, 620, 622 and 623.

1. City and County Ordinances: City of Sandpoint Ordinance No. 965 (2/21/1995 City adoption date).

2. EPA-Approved Idaho Source-Specific Requirements: Louisiana Pacific Corporation, Sandpoint, Idaho (State effective date 10/31/2001), The Amalgamated Sugar Company LLC—Nampa Factory, Nampa, Idaho (Permit No. T2-2009.0105, date issued 9/7/2010).

In this action, the EPA is announcing the update to the IBR material as of January 15, 2015. The EPA is also correcting typographical errors, including omission and capitalization errors in subsection 52.670(c), table entries 006, 124, and 220. The EPA is also reformatting dates (i.e., month, day and year) and correcting punctuation to display a consistent format throughout the tables in 52.670(c) and (d).

The EPA has determined that today's rule falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) which, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation and section 553(d)(3) which allows an agency to make a rule effective immediately (thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed effective date otherwise provided for in the APA). Today's rule simply codifies provisions which are already in effect as a matter of law in Federal and approved State programs. Under section 553 of the APA, an agency may find good cause where procedures are “impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Public comment is “unnecessary” and “contrary to the public interest” since the codification only reflects existing law. Immediate notice in the CFR benefits the public by removing outdated citations and incorrect table entries.

Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 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 this action does not involve technical standards; 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).

In addition, 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 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).

The EPA has also determined that the provisions of section 307(b)(1) of the CAA pertaining to petitions for judicial review are not applicable to this action. Prior EPA rulemaking actions for each individual component of the Idaho SIP compilations had previously afforded interested parties the opportunity to file a petition for judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days of such rulemaking action. Thus, the EPA sees no need in this action to reopen the 60-day period for filing such petitions for judicial review for this “Identification of plan” update action for Idaho.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

This document announces that, on March 17, 2015, OMB approved the information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Report and Order, FCC 14-50, published at 79 FR 48442, August 15, 2014. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1205. The Commission publishes this notice as an announcement of the effective date of the requirements. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-1205, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via email at [email protected]. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on March 17, 2015, for the new information collection requirements contained in the Commission's rules at 47 CFR 74.802(b)(2).

Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.

No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1205.

The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.

The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:

OMB Control Number: 3060-1205.

OMB Approval Date: March 17, 2015.

OMB Expiration Date: March 31, 2018.

Title: Section 74.802, Low Power Auxiliary Stations Co-channel Coordination with TV Broadcast Stations.

Form Number: Not Applicable.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; not-for-profit institutions; Federal government; and state, local or tribal government.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 400 respondents; 227 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement and third party disclosure requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in sections 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 325(b), 332, 336(f), 338, 339, 340, 399b, 403, 534, 535, 1404, 1452, and 1454.

Total Annual Burden: 227 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $56,750.00.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: In general there is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: There are no impacts under the Privacy Act.

Needs and Uses: The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) received approval for a new collection under OMB Control No. 3060-1205 from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). On June 2, 2014, the Commission released a Report and Order, FCC 14-50, GN Docket No. 12-268, “Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions.” This order adopted a revision to a Commission rule, 47 CFR 74.802(b), to permit low power auxiliary stations (LPAS), including wireless microphones, to operate in the bands allocated for TV broadcasting at revised distances from a co-channel television's contour, and provided LPAS operators to operate even closer to television stations provided that any such operations are coordinated with TV broadcast stations that could be affected by the LPAS operations. The Commission sought Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for a new information collection for the coordination process adopted in the Commission's Report and Order, FCC 14-50, for such co-channel operations, in 47 CFR 74.802d(b)(2).

Electronic Access

This rule is accessible via the Internet at the Office of the Federal Register Web site at http://www.access.thefederalregister.org/su_docs/aces/aces140.html. Background information and documents are available at the NMFS West Coast Region Web site at http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/fisheries/management/pacific_halibut_management.html and at the Council's Web site at http://www.pcouncil.org.

The IPHC has promulgated regulations governing the Pacific halibut fishery in 2015, pursuant to the Convention between Canada and the United States for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea (Convention), signed at Ottawa, Ontario, on March 2, 1953, as amended by a Protocol Amending the Convention (signed at Washington, DC, on March 29, 1979). Pursuant to the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act) at 16 U.S.C. 773b, the Secretary of State accepted the 2015 IPHC regulations as provided by the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act) at 16 U.S.C. 773-773k. NMFS published these regulations on March 17, 2015 (80 FR 13771).

The Halibut Act provides that the Regional Fishery Management Councils may develop, and the Secretary may implement, regulations governing harvesting privileges among U.S. fishermen in U.S. waters that are in addition to, and not in conflict with, approved IPHC regulations. To that end, the Council adopted a Catch Sharing Plan (Plan) allocating halibut among groups of fishermen in Area 2A, which is off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California. The Plan allocates the Area 2A catch limit among treaty Indian and non-Indian commercial and sport harvesters. The treaty Indian group includes tribal commercial, tribal ceremonial, and subsistence fisheries. Each year between 1988 and 1995, the Council developed and NMFS implemented a catch sharing plan in accordance with the Halibut Act to allocate the total allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific halibut between treaty Indian and non-Indian harvesters and among non-Indian commercial and sport fisheries in Area 2A. In 1995, NMFS implemented the Pacific Council-recommended long-term Plan (60 FR 14651, March 20, 1995). Every year since then, minor revisions to the Plan have been made to adjust for the changing needs of the fisheries.

NMFS implements the allocation scheme in the Plan through annual regulations for Area 2A. The proposed rule describing the changes the Council recommended to the Plan and resulting proposed Area 2A regulations for 2015 was published on February 3, 2015 (80 FR 5719). The proposed rule was developed prior to the IPHC's decision on a TAC for Area 2A, therefore it did not include final allocations for the relevant areas and subareas. The IPHC held its annual meeting January 26-30, 2015, and selected at TAC of 970,000 pounds for Area 2A. This final rule accounts for that information.

For 2015, this final rule contains only those regulations implementing the Plan in Area 2A. NMFS published the complete IPHC regulations, which apply to commercial, treaty Indian, and recreational fisheries, separately on March 17, 2015 (80 FR 13771). Therefore anyone wishing to fish for halibut in Area 2A should read both this final rule and the March 17, 2015 final rule that implements the IPHC regulations.

This final rule announces the approval of several Council-recommended changes to the Pacific Fishery Management Council's Area 2A Plan and implements the Plan through annual management measures. For 2015, the Council recommended and NMFS implements in this final rule, several changes to the non-Indian allocations in order to provide the California recreational fishery with an allocation that is closer to recent effort while not substantially reducing the remaining non-Indian allocations. The Council recommendation increases the California sport fishery allocation from 1 to 4 percent of the non-tribal allocation by reducing the Washington and Oregon sport and the commercial allocations each by 1 percent.

Additionally for 2015, the Council recommended several minor changes to the Plan that would: (1) Remove a reference to the “fall salmon troll fisheries” as a trigger for the rollover of quota from the directed halibut fishery to the incidental salmon troll fishery because there is no defined “fall” salmon fishery; (2) make several changes to the Columbia River subarea including modifying the Oregon contribution to a fixed percentage of the Oregon sport allocation, setting the nearshore fishery allocation to 500 pounds, removing the spring and summer fisheries thus allowing the quota to be used continuously, and adding all flatfish species to the list of incidentally caught fish allowed to be landed with halibut; (3) make several changes to the Oregon central coast subarea including clarifying that the allocation to the Columbia river subarea comes from the total Oregon sport allocation and not from this area's spring fishery, adding incidental flatfish retention consistent with the change in the Columbia River subarea, modifying the spring all depth season allocation from 61 to 63 percent, and removing the provision that allocated a portion of the spring fishery to the Southern Oregon subarea; (4) modify the allocation to the Southern Oregon subarea from 2 to 4 percent of the Oregon sport allocation after the Columbia River allocation has been subtracted; (5) make several changes to the California subarea including modifying the season structure to a 7 days per week fishery when open, with a season length that is based on attainment of the quota instead of a set season, allowing inseason action through joint NMFS, IPHC, and CDFW consultation; and (6) modify the name of the NMFS Northwest Regional Office to “NMFS West Coast Regional Office”, to reflect the recent merger of NMFS offices.

This final rule also implements the allocation for incidental halibut retention in the sablefish primary fishery north of Pt. Chehalis, Washington. The Plan provides that incidental halibut retention in the sablefish primary fishery north of Pt. Chehalis, Washington, will be allowed when the Area 2A TAC is greater than 900,000 lb (408.2 mt), provided that a minimum of 10,000 lb (4.5 mt) is available above the state of Washington recreational allocation of 214,100 lb (97.1 mt). In 2015, the TAC is set at 970,000 lb (439.99 mt); therefore, the allocation for incidental halibut retention in the sablefish fishery is 10,348 lb (4.69 mt). The Council considered whether any changes to the landing restrictions adopted for this fishery in 2014 were necessary for 2015, but because this allocation is similar to recent allocations, the Council made no changes. Therefore, the 2015 incidental halibut landing restrictions are: 75 pounds dressed weight of halibut for every 1,000 lbs dressed weight of sablefish, except that 2 additional halibut may be landed. These restrictions can be found in the groundfish regulations at 50 CFR 660.231(3)(iv).

The Plan allocates 15 percent of the non-Indian commercial TAC to the salmon troll fishery in Area 2A. For 2015, the allocation for the salmon troll fishery in Area 2A is 29,035 lb (13.17 mt). The Council approved a range of landing restrictions for public review at its recent March meeting. The final landing restrictions will be addressed at its April 2015 meetings.

NMFS accepted comments on the proposed rule for the Area 2A Plan and annual management measures through March 5, 2015. NMFS received 4 public comment letters: one comment letter each from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) recommending season dates for halibut sport fisheries in each state, and one comment from an individual.

Comment 1: The WDFW held a public meeting following the IPHC's final 2015 TAC decisions to review the results of the 2013 Puget Sound halibut fishery, as the 2014 catch data was not yet finalized, and the preliminary 2014 estimates, and to develop season dates for the 2015 sport halibut fishery. Based on input from stakeholders, WDFW recommended a 2015 season that is similar to the 2014 season because the allocation to this area is the same as in 2014. For the Puget Sound halibut sport fishery, WDFW recommended the following dates: the Eastern Region to be open May 8, 9, 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, and 30; and the Western Region to be open May 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, 24, 29, and 30.

Response: NMFS believes WDFW's recommended Puget Sound season dates will help keep this area within its quota, while providing for angler enjoyment and participation. Therefore, NMFS implements the dates for this subarea as stated above, in this final rule.

Comment 2: The ODFW held a public meeting and hosted an online survey following the final TAC decision by the IPHC. Based on public comments received on Oregon halibut fisheries, the ODFW recommended the following days for the spring fishery in the Central Coast subarea, within this subarea's parameters for a Thursday-Saturday season and weeks of adverse tidal conditions skipped: Regular open days May 14-16, 28-30, June 11-13, and 25-27. Back-up dates in case there is sufficient remaining quota will be July 9-11 and 23-25. For the summer all-depth fishery in this subarea, ODFW recommended following the Plan's parameters of opening the first Friday in August, with open days to occur every other Friday-Saturday, unless modified in-season within the parameters of the Plan. Therefore, pursuant to the Plan, the ODFW recommended the 2015 summer all-depth fishery in Oregon's Central Coast Subarea to occur: August 7, 8, 21, 22, September 4, 5, 18, 19, October 2, 3, 16, 17, 30, and 31.

Response: NMFS believes ODFW's recommended Central Coast season dates will help keep this area within its quota, while providing for angler enjoyment and participation. Therefore, NMFS implements the dates in this final rule.

Comment 3: The CDFW held a public meeting to solicit comments on the sport fishing seasons. Based on public comments and projected attainment of subarea allocation, the CDFW recommended the following open days May 1-14, June 1-15, July 1-15, August 1-15, and September 1-October 31.

Response: NMFS agrees with CDFW's recommended season dates. These dates will help keep this area within its quota, while providing for angler enjoyment and participation. Therefore, NMFS implements the dates in this final rule.

Comment 5: NMFS received one comment from a member of the public that appears to oppose the proposed rule, but does not identify any specific reasons for that opposition.

Response: NMFS believes the revised Plan and proposed annual regulations will result in effective management of fisheries in Area 2A, keeping catch in the Area within the TAC while allowing for meaningful commercial and recreational fisheries, and full opportunity for the treaty tribes with rights to fish for halibut to exercise those rights. Therefore, NMFS has approved this action.

On February 3, 2015, NMFS published a proposed rule to modify the Plan and recreational management measures for Area 2A (80 FR 5719). Because the proposed rule was finalized before the IPHC determined the TAC for Area 2A, the final subarea allocations based on the TAC and Plan are included for the first time in the final rule. The allocations in this rule are consistent with the final Area 2A TAC of 970,000 lbs and the 2015 Plan as recommended by the Council. Also, season dates as recommended by the states following determination of the TAC are included in the final rule. There are no other substantive changes from the proposed rule.

The sport fishing regulations for Area 2A, included in section 26 below, are consistent with the measures adopted by the IPHC and approved by the Secretary of State, but were developed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council and promulgated by the United States under the Halibut Act. Section 26 refers to a section that is in addition to and corresponds to the numbering in the IPHC regulations published on March 17, 2015 (80 FR 13771).

(1) The total allowable catch of halibut shall be limited to:

(a) 214,110 pounds (97.1 metric tons) net weight in waters off Washington;

(b) 187,259 pounds (84.9 metric tons) net weight in waters off Oregon; and

(c) 25,220 pounds (11.4 metric tons) net weight in waters off California.

(2) The Commission shall determine and announce closing dates to the public for any area in which the catch limits promulgated by NMFS are estimated to have been taken.

(3) When the Commission has determined that a subquota under paragraph (8) of this section is estimated to have been taken, and has announced a date on which the season will close, no person shall sport fish for halibut in that area after that date for the rest of the year, unless a reopening of that area for sport halibut fishing is scheduled in accordance with the Catch Sharing Plan for Area 2A, or announced by the Commission.

(4) In California, Oregon, or Washington, no person shall fillet, mutilate, or otherwise disfigure a halibut in any manner that prevents the determination of minimum size or the number of fish caught, possessed, or landed.

(5) The possession limit on a vessel for halibut in the waters off the coast of Washington is the same as the daily bag limit. The possession limit on land in Washington for halibut caught in U.S. waters off the coast of Washington is two halibut.

(6) The possession limit on a vessel for halibut caught in the waters off the coast of Oregon is the same as the daily bag limit. The possession limit for halibut on land in Oregon is three daily bag limits.

(7) The possession limit on a vessel for halibut caught in the waters off the coast of California is one halibut. The possession limit for halibut on land in California is one halibut.

(8) The sport fishing subareas, subquotas, fishing dates, and daily bag limits are as follows, except as modified under the in-season actions in 50 CFR 300.63(c). All sport fishing in Area 2A is managed on a “port of landing” basis, whereby any halibut landed into a port counts toward the quota for the area in which that port is located, and the regulations governing the area of landing apply, regardless of the specific area of catch.

(a) The area in Puget Sound and the U.S. waters in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, east of a line extending from 48°17.30′ N. lat., 124°23.70′ W. long. north to 48°24.10′ N. lat., 124°23.70′ W. long., is not managed in-season relative to its quota. This area is managed by setting a season that is projected to result in a catch of 57,393 lbs (26 mt).

(i) The fishing season in eastern Puget Sound (east of 123°49.50′ W. long., Low Point) is May 8, 9, 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, and 30. The fishing season in western Puget Sound (west of 123°49.50′ W. long., Low Point) is open May 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, 24, 29, and 30.

(ii) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person.

(b) The quota for landings into ports in the area off the north Washington coast, west of the line described in paragraph (2)(a) of section 26 and north of the Queets River (47°31.70′ N. lat.) (North Coast subarea), is 108,030 lbs (49 mt).

(i) The fishing seasons are:

(A) Commencing on May 14 and continuing 2 days a week (Thursday and Saturday) until 108,030 lbs (49 mt) are estimated to have been taken and the season is closed by the Commission, or until May 23.

(B) If sufficient quota remains the fishery will reopen on June 4 and/or June 6, continuing 2 days per week (Thursday and Saturday) until there is not sufficient quota for another full day of fishing and the area is closed by the Commission. After May 23, any fishery opening will be announced on the NMFS hotline at 800-662-9825. No halibut fishing will be allowed after May 23 unless the date is announced on the NMFS hotline.

(ii) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person.

(iii) Recreational fishing for groundfish and halibut is prohibited within the North Coast Recreational Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Area (YRCA). It is unlawful for recreational fishing vessels to take and retain, possess, or land halibut taken with recreational gear within the North Coast Recreational YRCA. A vessel fishing in the North Coast Recreational YRCA may not be in possession of any halibut. Recreational vessels may transit through the North Coast Recreational YRCA with or without halibut on board. The North Coast Recreational YRCA is a C-shaped area off the northern Washington coast intended to protect yelloweye rockfish. The North Coast Recreational YRCA is defined in groundfish regulations at § 660.70(a).

(c) The quota for landings into ports in the area between the Queets River, WA (47°31.70′ N. lat.), and Leadbetter Point, WA (46°38.17′ N. lat.) (South Coast subarea), is 42,739 lbs (19.4 mt).

(i) This subarea is divided between the all-waters fishery (the Washington South coast primary fishery), and the incidental nearshore fishery in the area from 47°31.70′ N. lat. south to 46°58.00′ N. lat. and east of a boundary line approximating the 30 fm depth contour. This area is defined by straight lines connecting all of the following points in the order stated as described by the following coordinates (the Washington South coast, northern nearshore area):

(1) 47°31.70′ N. lat, 124°37.03′ W. long;

(2) 47°25.67′ N. lat, 124°34.79′ W. long;

(3) 47°12.82′ N. lat, 124°29.12′ W. long;

(4) 46°58.00´ N. lat, 124°24.24′ W. long.

The south coast subarea quota will be allocated as follows: 40,739 lbs (18.5 mt) for the primary fishery and 2,000 lbs (0.9 mt) for the nearshore fishery. The primary fishery commences on May 3, and continues 2 days a week (Sunday and Tuesday) until May 19. If the primary quota is projected to be obtained sooner than expected, the management closure may occur earlier. Beginning on May 31 the primary fishery will be open at most 2 days per week (Sunday and/or Tuesday) until the quota for the south coast subarea primary fishery is taken and the season is closed by the Commission, or until September 30, whichever is earlier. The fishing season in the nearshore area commences on May 3, and continues 7 days per week. Subsequent to closure of the primary fishery, the nearshore fishery is open 7 days per week, until is 42,739 lbs (19.4 mt) is projected to be taken by the two fisheries combined and the fishery is closed by the Commission or September 30, whichever is earlier. If the fishery is closed prior to September 30, and there is insufficient quota remaining to reopen the northern nearshore area for another fishing day, then any remaining quota may be transferred in-season to another Washington coastal subarea by NMFS via an update to the recreational halibut hotline.

(ii) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person.

(iii) Seaward of the boundary line approximating the 30-fm depth contour and during days open to the primary fishery, lingcod may be taken, retained and possessed when allowed by groundfish regulations at 50 CFR 660.360, subpart G.

(iv) Recreational fishing for groundfish and halibut is prohibited within the South Coast Recreational YRCA and Westport Offshore YRCA. It is unlawful for recreational fishing vessels to take and retain, possess, or land halibut taken with recreational gear within the South Coast Recreational YRCA and Westport Offshore YRCA. A vessel fishing in the South Coast Recreational YRCA and/or Westport Offshore YRCA may not be in possession of any halibut. Recreational vessels may transit through the South Coast Recreational YRCA and Westport Offshore YRCA with or without halibut on board. The South Coast Recreational YRCA and Westport Offshore YRCA are areas off the southern Washington coast established to protect yelloweye rockfish. The South Coast Recreational YRCA is defined at 50 CFR 660.70(d). The Westport Offshore YRCA is defined at 50 CFR 660.70(e).

(d) The quota for landings into ports in the area between Leadbetter Point, WA (46°38.17′ N. lat.), and Cape Falcon, OR (45°46.00′ N. lat.) (Columbia River subarea), is 10,254 lbs (4.65 mt).

(i) This subarea is divided into an all-depth fishery and a nearshore fishery. The nearshore fishery is allocated 500 pounds of the subarea allocation. The nearshore fishery extends from Leadbetter Point (46°38.17′ N. lat., 124°15.88′ W. long.) to the Columbia River (46°16.00′ N. lat., 124°15.88′ W. long.) by connecting the following coordinates in Washington 46°38.17′ N. lat., 124°15.88′ W. long. 46°16.00′ N. lat., 124°15.88′ W. long and connecting to the boundary line approximating the 40 fm (73 m) depth contour in Oregon. The nearshore fishery opens May 4, and continues 3 days per week (Monday-Wednesday) until the nearshore allocation is taken, or September 30, whichever is earlier. The all depth fishing season commences on May 1, and continues 4 days a week (Thursday-Sunday) until 9,754 lbs (4.4 mt) are estimated to have been taken and the season is closed by the Commission, or September 30, whichever is earlier. Subsequent to this closure, if there is insufficient quota remaining in the Columbia River subarea for another fishing day, then any remaining quota may be transferred inseason to another Washington and/or Oregon subarea by NMFS via an update to the recreational halibut hotline. Any remaining quota would be transferred to each state in proportion to its contribution.

(ii) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person.

(iii) Pacific Coast groundfish may not be taken and retained, possessed or landed when halibut are on board the vessel, except sablefish, Pacific cod, and flatfish species when allowed by Pacific Coast groundfish regulations, during days open to the all depth fishery only.

(iv) Taking, retaining, possessing, or landing halibut on groundfish trips is only allowed in the nearshore area on days not open to all-depth Pacific halibut fisheries.

(e) The quota for landings into ports in the area off Oregon between Cape Falcon (45°46.00′ N. lat.) and Humbug Mountain (42°40.50′ N. lat.) (Oregon Central Coast subarea), is 175,633 lbs (79.6 mt).

(i) The fishing seasons are:

(A) The first season (the “inside 40-fm” fishery) commences July 1, and continues 7 days a week, in the area shoreward of a boundary line approximating the 40-fm (73-m) depth contour, or until the sub-quota for the central Oregon “inside 40-fm” fishery of 21,076 lbs (9.56 mt), or any in-season revised subquota, is estimated to have been taken and the season is closed by the Commission, whichever is earlier. The boundary line approximating the 40-fm (73-m) depth contour between 45°46.00′ N. lat. and 42°40.50′ N. lat. is defined at § 660.71(k).

(B) The second season (spring season), which is for the “all-depth” fishery, is open May 14-16, 28-30, June 11-13, and 25-27. Back-up dates will be July 9-11 and 23-25. The projected catch for this season is 110,649 lbs (50.2 mt). If sufficient unharvested quota remains for additional fishing days, the season will re-open. If NMFS decides inseason to allow fishing on any of these re-opening dates, notice of the re-opening will be announced on the NMFS hotline (206) 526-6667 or (800) 662-9825. No halibut fishing will be allowed on the re-opening dates unless the date is announced on the NMFS hotline.

(C) If sufficient unharvested quota remains, the third season (summer season), which is for the “all-depth” fishery, will be open August 7, 8, 21, 22, September 4, 5, 18, 19, October 2, 3, 16, 17, 30, 31, or until the combined spring season and summer season quotas in the area between Cape Falcon and Humbug Mountain, OR, are estimated to have been taken and the area is closed by the Commission, or October 31, whichever is earlier. NMFS will announce on the NMFS hotline in July whether the fishery will re-open for the summer season in August. No halibut fishing will be allowed in the summer season fishery unless the dates are announced on the NMFS hotline. Additional fishing days may be opened if sufficient quota remains after the last day of the first scheduled open period on August 7. If, after this date, an amount greater than or equal to 60,000 lb (27.2 mt) remains in the combined all-depth and inside 40-fm (73-m) quota, the fishery may re-open every Friday and Saturday, beginning (insert date of first back up dates) and ending October 31. If after September 7, an amount greater than or equal to 30,000 lb (13.6 mt) remains in the combined all-depth and inside 40-fm (73-m) quota, and the fishery is not already open every Friday and Saturday, the fishery may re-open every Friday and Saturday, beginning September 10 and 11, and ending October 31. After September 7, the bag limit may be increased to two fish of any size per person, per day. NMFS will announce on the NMFS hotline whether the summer all-depth fishery will be open on such additional fishing days, what days the fishery will be open and what the bag limit is.

(ii) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person, unless otherwise specified. NMFS will announce on the NMFS hotline any bag limit changes.

(iii) During days open to all-depth halibut fishing, no Pacific Coast groundfish may be taken and retained, possessed or landed, when halibut are on board the vessel, except sablefish, Pacific cod, and flatfish species, when allowed by Pacific Coast groundfish regulations.

(iv) When the all-depth halibut fishery is closed and halibut fishing is permitted only shoreward of a boundary line approximating the 40-fm (73-m) depth contour, halibut possession and retention by vessels operating seaward of a boundary line approximating the 40-fm (73-m) depth contour is prohibited.

(v) Recreational fishing for groundfish and halibut is prohibited within the Stonewall Bank YRCA. It is unlawful for recreational fishing vessels to take and retain, possess, or land halibut taken with recreational gear within the Stonewall Bank YRCA. A vessel fishing in the Stonewall Bank YRCA may not possess any halibut. Recreational vessels may transit through the Stonewall Bank YRCA with or without halibut on board. The Stonewall Bank YRCA is an area off central Oregon, near Stonewall Bank, intended to protect yelloweye rockfish. The Stonewall Bank YRCA is defined at § 660.70(f).

(f) The quota for landings into ports in the area south of Humbug Mountain, OR (42°40.50′ N. lat.) to the Oregon/California Border (42°00.00′ N. lat.)(Southern Oregon subarea) is 7,318 lbs (3.3 mt).

(i) The fishing season commences on May 1, and continues 7 days per week until the subquota is taken, or October 31, whichever is earlier.

(ii) The daily bag limit is one halibut per person with no size limit.

(g) The quota for landings into ports south of the Oregon/California Border (42°00.00′ N. lat.) and along the California coast is 25,220 lb (11.4 mt).

(i) The fishing season will be open May 1-15, June 1-15, July 1-15, August 1-15, and September 1-October 31, or until the subarea quota is estimated to have been taken and the season is closed by the Commission, or October 31, whichever is earlier. NMFS will announce any closure by the Commission on the NMFS hotline (206) 526-6667 or (800) 662-9825.

(ii) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per person.

Section 5 of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act, 16 U.S.C. 773c) allows the Regional Council having authority for a particular geographical area to develop regulations governing the allocation and catch of halibut in U.S. Convention waters as long as those regulations do not conflict with IPHC regulations. This action is consistent with the Pacific Council's authority to allocate halibut catches among fishery participants in the waters in and off the U.S. West Coast.

This action has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

NMFS prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) in association with the proposed rule for the 2014 Area 2A Catch Sharing Plan. The final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) incorporates the IRFA, a summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, if any, and NMFS' responses to those comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the action. NMFS received no comments on the IRFA. A copy of the FRFA is available from the NMFS West Coast Region (see ADDRESSES) and a summary of the FRFA follows.

This rule implements changes to the Halibut Catch Sharing Plan (CSP) that addresses the commercial and recreational fisheries within Area 2A (waters off the U.S. West Coast). The International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) sets the overall Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and the CSP governs the allocation of that TAC between tribal and non-tribal fisheries, and among non-tribal fisheries. The Council, with input from industry, the states, and the tribes, may recommend changes to the CSP. (Note that the IPHC also sets the commercial fishery opening date(s), duration, and vessel trip limits to ensure that the quota for the non-tribal fisheries is not exceeded.) For non-tribal fisheries, the CSP governs allocations of the TAC between various components of the commercial fisheries and recreational fisheries, and these allocations may vary depending on the level of the TAC. Seasons, gear restrictions, and other management measures implemented through domestic regulations are then used to meet the allocations and priorities of the CSP. There were no significant issues raised by the public comments in response to IRFA.

These regulations directly affect fin-fish harvesting and charterboat businesses. The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the US, including fish harvesting and fish processing businesses. A business involved in fish harvesting is a small business if it is independently owned and operated and not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates) and if it has combined annual receipts, not in excess of $20.5 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide (See 79 FR 33647, effective July 14, 2014). For marinas and charter/party boats, a small business is now defined as one with annual receipts, not in excess of $7.5 million. A seafood processor is a small business if it is independently owned and operated, not dominant in its field of operation, and employs 500 or fewer persons on a full time, part time, temporary, or other basis, at all its affiliated operations worldwide. A wholesale business servicing the fishing industry is a small business if it employs 100 or fewer persons on a full time, part time, temporary, or other basis, at all its affiliated operations worldwide. A small organization is any nonprofit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. Small governmental jurisdictions such as governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts are considered small jurisdictions if their populations are less than 50,000.

To determine the number of small entities potentially affected by this rule, NMFS reviewed the number of IPHC issued licenses and other information. In 2014, 591 vessels were issued IPHC licenses to retain halibut. IPHC issued licenses for: The directed commercial fishery and the incidental fishery in the sablefish primary fishery in Area 2A (166 licenses in 2014); incidental halibut caught in the salmon troll fishery (425 licenses in 2014); and the charterboat fleet (127 licenses in 2013, the most recent year available). No vessel may participate in more than one of these three fisheries per year. These license estimates overstate the number of vessels that participate in the fishery. IPHC estimates that 60 vessels participated in the directed commercial fishery, 100 vessels in the incidental commercial (salmon) fishery, and 13 vessels in the incidental commercial (sablefish) fishery. Recent information on charterboat activity is not available, but prior analysis indicated that 60 percent of the IPHC charterboat license holders may be affected by these regulations. There are no projected reporting or record keeping requirements with this rule. There are no large entities involved in the halibut fisheries; therefore, none of these changes will have a disproportionate negative effect on small entities versus large entities.

The major effect of halibut management on small entities is from the internationally set TAC decisions made by the IPHC. Based on the recommendations of the states, the Council recommended and NMFS is implementing in this final rule minor changes to the Plan to provide increased recreational and commercial opportunities under the allocations that result from the TAC.

The IPHC increased the Area 2A TAC by 1% from 960,000 lbs (2014) to 970,000 lbs (2015). Within this 1% increase, different subgroups are being affected differently because of the CSP allocation formula.

The 2A Halibut Catch Sharing Plan, as outlined above, allocates the TAC at various levels. The commercial fishery is further divided into a directed commercial fishery that is allocated 85 percent of the commercial allocation of the Pacific halibut TAC, and incidental catch in the salmon troll fishery that is allocated 15 percent of the commercial allocation. The directed commercial fishery in Area 2A is confined to southern Washington (south of 46°53.30′ N. lat.), Oregon, and California. North of 46°53.30′ N. lat. (Pt. Chehalis), the Plan allows for incidental halibut retention in the sablefish primary fishery when the overall Area 2A TAC is above 900,000 lb (408.2 mt). The Plan also divides the sport fisheries into seven geographic subareas, each with separate allocations, seasons, and bag limits. The non-tribal allocation is divided into four shares. At the first level, there are specific percentage allocations for tribal and non-tribal fisheries. The non-tribal portion is then allocated to commercial components and to recreational components. The commercial component is then apportioned into directed, incidental troll, and incidental sablefish fisheries. The recreational portions for Oregon and Washington are furthered apportioned into area subquotas and these subquotas are further split into seasonal or depth fisheries (nearshore vs all depths). There may be gear restrictions and other management measures established as necessary to minimize the potential for the allocations to be exceeded.

At the September meeting, the Council adopted a range of Plan alternatives for public review. For 2015, the Council adopted two types of Plan changes that are discussed separately below. The first were the routine recreational fishery adjustments proposed by the states each year to accommodate the needs of their fisheries. The second were allocation changes to both the non-treaty commercial and recreational fisheries in order to increase the California allocation. The Council made final Plan change recommendations from this range at its November meeting.

For the non-allocation Plan changes the Council considered changes to the Columbia River, Oregon Central Coast, Southern Oregon, and California subareas. For the Columbia River subarea the Council considered: (1) Status quo seasonal management in a spring and summer fishery and one alternative which removes the seasonal split in the Columbia River subarea to allow for a single continuous season; (2) status quo allocation contributions from Washington and Oregon in equal amounts and one alternative that modifies the Oregon contribution to the Columbia River subarea to 2.3 percent of the Oregon sport allocation; and (3) status quo nearshore fishery allocation of 1,500 pounds and one alternative that modifies the Columbia River nearshore area allocation to 500 pounds. The Council recommended and this final rule implements each of the alternatives for the Columbia River subarea because the status quo alternatives do not match the needs of the fishery. The status quo season structure with an early and late season was rejected because this structure would unnecessarily strand quota later in the year when effort decreases substantially. The status quo Oregon contribution was rejected because it does not match recent effort in this subarea in Oregon. The status quo nearshore allocation was rejected because the allocation did not match the effort in the nearshore area, leaving a large portion of the allocation unavailable for harvest in other areas.

For the Oregon Central Coast subarea, the Council considered three all-depth season structures and modifications to the allocation from the Oregon Central Coast spring fishery to the Southern Oregon subarea. For the season structure, the Council considered three alternatives: Status quo, which would separate spring and summer seasons; Alternative 1a, which would combine the spring and summer season and open the fishery on May 1; and Alternative 1b, which is the same as 1a, except begin on the first weekend in May that avoid negative tides. For the allocation change the Council considered: Status quo, which allocates a portion of the spring fishery to the Southern Oregon subarea, and one alternative, which allocates a portion of the overall Oregon Central Coast subarea allocation to the Southern Oregon subarea. The Council recommended and this final rule implements the status quo alternative for the season structure and the one alternative for the allocation to the Southern Oregon subarea. The season structure alternatives were rejected because they did not match the needs of this fishery. The allocation in this area is generally caught very quickly, therefore keeping separate seasons allows for two distinct seasons. The status quo alternative allocation to the Southern Oregon subarea was rejected because it does not allow the Southern Oregon subarea an individual allocation, which means any overages in this area could affect other subareas.

For the Southern Oregon subarea, the Council considered three alternative season dates: Status quo, opening May 1, seven days per week; Alternative 1, open June 1, seven days per week; and Alternative 2, open July 1 seven days per week. The Council recommended and this final rule implements the status quo alternative because the other alternatives do not match the recent effort in this area and does not match the input the ODFW received at their public meetings.

In the Columbia River and Central Oregon Coast subareas, the Council considered three alternatives to incidental groundfish retention allowances: status quo, only Pacific cod and sablefish are allowed; Alternative 1, revise the bottomfish restrictions such that all groundfish except rockfish and lingcod would be allowed when halibut are onboard; and Alternative 2, revise the bottomfish restrictions such that other flatfish, in addition to Pacific cod and sablefish, would be allowed when halibut are onboard. The Council recommended and this final rule implements Alternative 2 because it allows incidentally caught flatfish species to be landed with halibut without increasing the catch of overfished species. Status quo was rejected because it would not allow incidentally caught flatfish species to be landed. Alternative 1 was rejected because it would likely increase the take of overfished groundfish species to levels that would restrict other fisheries due to the small allocations of overfished species.

For the California subarea, the Council considered three alternatives: Status quo, fixed season open May 1-July 31 and September 1-October 31, no inseason adjustment; Alternative 1, one month season between May 1 and October 31, to be determined preseason, with inseason adjustment as needed; Alternative 2, 15 consecutive day season between May 1 and October 31, to be determined preseason, with inseason adjustment as needed. The Council recommended and this final rule implements a modified Alternative which allows for a seven day a week fishery, that will be determined preseason through joint consultation between NMFS and CDFW, and allows for inseason adjustment as necessary. The other three alternatives were rejected because they either did not allow for inseason adjustment or predetermined the season dates which would unnecessarily restrict the season.

No alternatives were considered for the NMFS recommended change to the Regional Office name because it is administrative in nature and simply updates the name of the region from “Northwest” to “West Coast.”

The changes to the Columbia River subarea allocations and incidentally landed species allowances are expected to increase recreational opportunities by shifting underutilized fishery allocation from the late to the early part of the season when effort is higher and by turning previously discarded incidental flatfish catch into landed catch. Changes to the Oregon Central Coast subarea allocation and incidentally landed species are expected to prolong seasons and increase the total number of fishing days and are expected to increase recreational opportunities by turning previously discarded incidental catch into landed catch. None of these changes are controversial and none are expected to result in substantial environmental or economic impacts. These actions are intended to enhance the conservation of Pacific halibut, to provide angler opportunity where available, and to protect overfished groundfish species from incidental catch in the halibut fisheries. Because the goal of the action is to maximize angler participation and thus to maximize the economic benefits of the fishery, NMFS did not analyze alternatives to the above changes to the Plan other than the proposed changes and the status quo for purposes of the FRFA. Status quo would be the 2014 Plan applied to the 2015 TAC. Effects of the status quo and the final changes are similar because the changes to the Plan for 2015 are not substantially different from the 2014 Plan. The changes to the Plan are not expected to have a significant economic impact.

In response to the growing California sport fishery, for 2014, a specific recreational subquota was created—1% of the non-tribal quota or 6,240 lbs. In prior years, the California fishery was a portion of the Southern Oregon/Northern California subquota. Preliminary catch data for 2015 show that the California fishery has taken 31,226 lbs, five times the California subquota. Because the 2014 subquota was insuffiencent to meet the growth in the California fishery, the Council reviewed six alternatives that allocate halibut to the various sectors differently between the sectors depending on the size of the TAC. Status Quo: The non-treaty allocation is apportioned according to the 2014 CSP: Washington sport (36.60%), Oregon sport (30.70%), California sport (1.00%), and commercial (31.70%). Alternative 1: Maintain allocations as described in the CSP (Status Quo), except increase the California sport allocation by two percent, for a total California sport allocation of three percent, by reducing the non-treaty commercial fishery share. Alternative 2, Option A: Same allocations as described in Alternative 1 when the 2A TAC is one million pounds or less. When the 2A TAC is above one million pounds, the California sport allocation would increase by an additional one percent, for a total California sport allocation of four percent, by reducing the non-treaty commercial fishery share. Alternative 2, Option B: Same allocations as described in Alternative 1 when the 2A TAC is one million pounds or less. When the 2A TAC is greater than one million pounds, the first one million pounds of the 2A TAC shall be distributed according to the Alternative 1 allocations. For the portion of the 2A TAC that exceeds one million pounds, the California sport allocation would increase to 30-50 percent of the non-treaty share, and allocation percentages for the non-treaty commercial and recreational (Washington and Oregon) would be reduced to remain proportional to the status quo non-treaty shares. Alternative 3: Increase the California sport allocation by two percent, for a total California sport allocation of three percent, when the 2A TAC is less than one million pounds by reducing the three major non-treaty group allocations (i.e., Washington sport, Oregon sport, and commercial). When the 2A TAC is greater than one million pounds, the first one million pounds of the 2A TAC shall be distributed according to the Alternative 3 allocations. For the portion of the 2A TAC that exceeds one million pounds, the California sport allocation would increase to four percent of the non-treaty share by reducing the three major non-treaty group allocations. Alternative 4: Increase the California sport share by three percent, for a total allocation of four percent, when the 2A TAC is less than one million pounds by reducing the three major non-treaty group allocations. When the 2A TAC is greater than one million pounds, the first one million pounds of the 2A TAC shall be distributed according to the Alternative 4 allocations. For the portion of the 2A TAC that exceeds one million pounds, the California sport allocation would increase to five percent of the non-treaty share by reducing the three major non-treaty group allocations. Alternative 5: Increase the California sport share by four percent, for a total allocation of five percent, when the 2A TAC is less than one million pounds by reducing the three major non-treaty group allocations. When the 2A TAC is greater than one million pounds, the first one million pounds of the 2A TAC shall be distributed according to the Alternative 5 allocations. For the portion of the 2A TAC that exceeds one million pounds, the California sport allocation would increase to six percent of the non-treaty share by reducing the three major non- treaty group allocations. In addition to modifying the commercial and recreational fisheries allocations, suboptions within the allocation alternatives were evaluated for when the TAC is expected to be greater than one million pounds to cap the California allocation. These caps were designed to cap the California allocation to a level that the fishery could reasonably be expected to harvest in order to not strand pounds, therefore, making them unavailable to other fisheries. However, a one million pound TAC is a level the fishery has not experienced in recent years nor is it anticipated for the near term future.

For 2015, the Council has recommended and this final rule implements Alternative 4 (the preferred alternative). For 2015, the Council recommended to increase the California recreational fishery allocation to 4% of the non-tribal allocation by reducing the Washington and Oregon sport and commercial allocations each by 1 percent. This modification is intended to provide an allocation to California that better matches recent effort. The CDFW has also committed to increased inseason monitoring in collaboration with NMFS. Pacific halibut sport fisheries in California have exceeded the allocation in recent years and therefore the goal of increased inseason monitoring and action, as necessary, is to keep the subarea within its allocation. Further, instead of a fixed season, CDFW will recommend to NMFS, similar to subareas in Washington and Oregon, a season length based on expected catch to attain the subarea quota. The status quo allocation was rejected because if maintained, the California fishery is likely to continue to exceed its quota and suffer an early shutdown. Under the status quo alternative, the overall halibut TAC will run the risk of being exceeded, and therefore it was not selected. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 provide increases to the recreational fishery based on decreasing the commercial quota by 2 percent. Alternative 5 increases the California subquota by 4 percent by reducing the Oregon and Washington subquota and the non-tribal commercial quota. While this favors the California fishery, it is at the expense of too large of a reduction in the other fisheries, and therefore it was not selected.

Under Alternative 4, the preferred alternative, the increase of 3% to the California subquota comes from reducing the WA sport quota by 1%, the Oregon sport quota by 1%, and the non-tribal commercial quota by 1%. The overall effect is a shift of 1% reduction of the non-tribal commercial directed quota to the total sport quota allocation. From an economic perspective, it is unclear whether this shift is negative or positive given available analyses. However the overall economic effects of this shift is small as the potential loss of about $300,000 in ex-vessel revenues must be weighed by the gain of increased charterboat recreational activities.

Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, the Secretary recognizes the sovereign status and co-manager role of Indian tribes over shared Federal and tribal fishery resources. Section 302(b)(5) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act establishes a seat on the Council for a representative of an Indian tribe with federally recognized fishing rights from California, Oregon, Washington, or Idaho. The U.S. Government formally recognizes that 13 Washington tribes have treaty rights to fish for Pacific halibut. The Plan allocates 35 percent of the Area 2A TAC to U.S. treaty Indian tribes in the State of Washington. Each of the treaty tribes has the discretion to administer their fisheries and to establish their own policies to achieve program objectives. Accordingly, tribal allocations and regulations, including the changes to the Plan, have been developed in with the affected tribe(s) and, insofar as possible, with tribal consensus.

In 2014, an Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared analyzing the continuing implementation of the Catch Sharing Plan for 2014-2016. The Plan changes for 2015 are not expected to have any effects on the environment beyond those discussed in the EA and in the finding of no significant impact (FONSI).

NMFS conducted a formal section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act for the Area 2A Catch Sharing Plan for 2014-2016 addressing the effects of implementing the Plan on ESA-listed yelloweye rockfish, canary rockfish, and bocaccio in Puget Sound, the Southern Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of green sturgeon, salmon, marine mammals, and sea turtles. In the biological opinion the Regional Administrator determined that the implementation of the Catch Sharing Plan for 2014-2016 is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Puget Sound yelloweye rockfish, Puget Sound canary rockfish, Puget Sound bocaccio, Puget Sound Chinook, Lower Columbia River Chinook, and green sturgeon. It is not expected to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for green sturgeon or result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat for Puget Sound yelloweye rockfish, canary rockfish, bocaccio. In addition, the opinion concluded that the implementation of the Plan is not likely to adversely affect marine mammals, the remaining listed salmon species and sea turtles, and is not likely to adversely affect critical habitat for Southern resident killer whales, stellar sea lions, leatherback sea turtles, any listed salmonids, and humpback whales. Further, the Regional Administrator determined that implementation of the Catch Sharing Plan will have no effect on southern eulachon, this determination was made in a letter dated March 12, 2014. The 2015 Plan and regulations do not change the conclusions from the biological opinion.

NMFS has initiated consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the effects of the halibut fishery on seabirds, bull trout, and sea otters. This consultation is not completed at this time. NMFS has prepared a 7(a)(2)/7(d) determination memo under the ESA concluding that any effects of the 2015 fishery on listed seabirds are expected to be quite low, and are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species. Further, in no way will the 2015 fishery make an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources by the agency.

NMFS finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness and make this rule effective upon publication in the Federal Register, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), so that this final rule may become effective on April 1, 2015, when incidental halibut retention in the sablefish primary fishery begins. While the 2015 TAC is higher than the 2014 TAC, due to the changes made to the Plan, the allocations for the salmon troll and sablefish primary fisheries are actually lower in 2015 than they were in 2014. Therefore, allowing the 2014 measures to remain in place could result in significant management changes later in the year to prevent exceeding the lower 2015 subarea allocations. Finally, this final rule approves the Council's 2015 Plan that responds to the needs of the fisheries in each state and approves the portions of the Plan allocating incidentally caught halibut in the salmon troll and sablefish primary fisheries, which start April 1. Therefore, allowing the 2014 subarea allocations and Plan to remain in place would not respond to the needs of the fishery and would be in conflict with the Council's final recommendation for 2015. For all of these reasons, a delay in effectiveness could ultimately cause economic harm to the fishing industry and associated fishing communities by reducing fishing opportunity later in the year to keep catch in the subareas within the lower 2015 allocations or result in harvest levels inconsistent with the best available scientific information. As a result of the potential harm to fishing communities that could be caused by delaying the effectiveness of this final rule, NMFS finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness and make this rule effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:

The CPS fishery in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the West Coast is managed under the CPS FMP, which was developed by the Council pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Species managed under the CPS FMP include Pacific sardine, Pacific mackerel, jack mackerel, northern anchovy, market squid and krill. The CPS FMP was approved by the Secretary of Commerce and was implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 660, subpart I.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that each regional fishery management council submit proposed amendments to a fishery management plan to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary). The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that, upon receiving a fishery management plan amendment, NMFS immediately publish in the Federal Register a notice that the amendment is available for public review and comment. NMFS determined that Amendment 14 to the FMP is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws, and the Secretary approved Amendment 14 on March 23, 2015. The December 24, 2014, Notice of Availability contains additional information on this action. No changes to Federal regulations are necessary to implement Amendment 14. Amendment 14 will change the CPS FMP so that it now includes a specification of an estimate MSY for the northern subpopulation of northern anchovy. NMFS has determined that the specification of an FMSY of 0.3 as the MSY reference for the northern subpopulation of northern anchovy point as recommended by the Council is appropriate and supported by the best available information.

At the November 2013 Council meeting the Council adopted an FMSY of 0.3 as the best estimate of MSY for the northern subpopulation of northern anchovy and voted to amend the CPS FMP accordingly to include this reference point. This action was based on data compiled by the CPS Management Team and a recommendation by the Council's Science and Statistical Committee (SSC). An FMSY equal to 0.3, the default exploitation rate for Pacific mackerel, a stock for which more information is known regarding stock variability and productivity, was deemed an appropriate specification of MSY by the SSC. This was deemed appropriate by the SSC because the best available information regarding northern anchovy shows that northern anchovy are likely to be at least as productive as Pacific mackerel, and likely have higher natural mortality, which would typically be associated with a higher FMSY. Speaking further to their recommendation of the FMSY, the SSC stated that due to both high uncertainty in the available biomass estimates and large fluctuations in stock biomass that are known to occur in species such as anchovy, a fixed biomass-based approach to specifying MSY would likely not be appropriate. Additionally, because the northern subpopulation of northern anchovy is lightly fished, with inconsistent effort over time, the existing time series of catch was likely an unreliable indicator of stock status and therefore determining a catch-based MSY would not be meaningful.

The Notice of Availability for Amendment 14 was published in the Federal Register on December 24, 2014 (79 FR 77426), with a 60-day comment period that ended on February 23, 2015. NMFS received one comment letter during the public comment period. No changes were made in response to these comments. NMFS summarizes and responds to that comment below.

Comment: The majority of points raised in the comment were outside the scope of Amendment 14 and instead were related to the CPS FMP as a whole and/or other aspects of the management of the northern subpopulation of northern anchovy beyond the establishment of an MSY reference point, which is the purpose and substance of Amendment 14. Those comments will not be addressed here. However, NMFS found the comments valuable and will consider them for future management planning, and will ensure the Council is aware of the comments. Related to Amendment 14, the commenter questioned some of the scientific rationale underlying the MSY recommendation, specifically the commenter states that productivity is not constant and states that the MSY estimate does not account for the current productivity of the stock and may overestimate the productivity of the stock during periods of low natural recruitment, which the commenter states currently appears to be the case from recent NMFS, CalCOFI, and independent surveys and that the use of information on Pacific mackerel to help determine the estimate may not be appropriate. The commenter however did not state that the Amendment should not be approved and expressed encouragement by the establishment of this reference point.

Response: NMFS agrees with the commenter that productivity of the northern subpopulation of northern anchovy is likely not constant over time. Much like other CPS stocks, the northern subpopulation of northern anchovy is likely subject to relatively large fluctuations in stock biomass that are driven by changes in environmental conditions. As described below, this specific life history trait was in fact part of the rationale for the SSC's recommendation to the Council and subsequent adoption by the Council of an FMSY equal to 0.3 over a fixed biomass-based or catch-based MSY that may not fully take these factors into consideration. Additionally, NMFS points out that by definition MSY is a long-term average, therefore at times any estimate may be an overestimate or an underestimate, however, the MSY estimate is intended to reflect a fishing mortality rate that does not jeopardize the capacity of a stock or stock complex to produce MSY.

As it relates to the specific information used to make the determination that an FMSY equal to 0.3 is appropriate for use as the MSY reference point for the northern subpopulation of northern anchovy, NMFS has determined the best available scientific information was used. In addition, an FMSY equal to 0.3 was recommended to the Council by its SSC, the scientific advisory body to the Council tasked with making such recommendations based on the best available information. Although the commenter states that there is recent survey information that is contrary to this determination, no specific evidence or citations for this referenced information is provided to show that the a FMSY equal to 0.3 does not represent the best available science for estimating MSY for this stock. Furthermore, the commenter references the California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations (CalCOFI) survey however this survey only occurs off of southern and south-central California, were as the southern extent of the habitat range for the northern subpopulation of northern anchovy is northern California. In making their recommendation on MSY the SSC reviewed all of the available information on the stock, which although limited, included information such as egg and larvae survey data, density and distribution data, stock productivity and vulnerability information and landings data, which was prepared and presented to them by the Council's CPSMT (Agenda Item I.2.c, CPSMT Report 1, November 2010 and references contained within). Included in this scientific and fishery information, and specifically examined for potential use in estimating MSY, were (the only) two estimates of biomass: One from the 1970s (Richardson 1981), and the other from an acoustic survey conducted by researchers at the Southwest Fisheries Science Center in 2008 as well as the historical time series of catch going back to the 1950s. In reviewing this information, however, the SSC noted that the available biomass estimates were uncertain and, because there were only two, they provided little information on the variability of stock biomass over time. Furthermore, the SSC also noted that because the northern subpopulation of anchovy has been lightly fished, with inconsistent effort, that the time series of catch was an unreliable indicator of annual stock status. It was therefore determined that because of the paucity of biomass data and the nature of the landings information, that a MSY estimate based either of these sources would not be representative of the biology of the stock, and that it would be more appropriate to use a rate-based approach to estimate MSY instead of biomass or catch-based method.

Although general biological information on the northern subpopulation of northern anchovy exists, specific productivity information is limited; therefore the SSC looked at information available for the other CPS stocks to help determine an appropriate rate. For instance, the default exploitation rate for Pacific mackerel, a stock for which more information is known regarding stock variability and productivity (stock assessments for Pacific mackerel have occurred since 1978, with annual assessments generally since 2000), is 0.3. Based on what information is known regarding northern anchovy, they are assumed to be at least as productive as Pacific mackerel, and likely have higher natural mortality (Patrick et al. 2009, PFMC 1998, Crone et al. 2011) which would typically be associated with a higher FMSY. Therefore an FMSY equal to 0.3 was deemed an appropriate specification of MSY by the SSC, for the northern subpopulation of northern anchovy, in part, because the previous determination of 0.3 as the default exploitation rate for Pacific mackerel and the existing knowledge of the two stocks.