Federal Register Vol. 80, No.73,

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this rule is not-significant for the purpose of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, it has not been reviewed by OMB.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the collections of information in this rule have been approved by OMB under control number 0563-0053.

FCIC is committed to complying with the E-Government Act of 2002, 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.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.

It has been determined under section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132, Federalism, that this rule does not have sufficient implications to warrant consultation with the States. The provisions contained in this rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States, or on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. The review reveals that this regulation will not have substantial and direct effects on Tribal governments and will not have significant Tribal implications.

FCIC certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Program requirements for the Federal crop insurance program are the same for all producers regardless of the size of their farming operation. For instance, all producers are required to submit an application and acreage report to establish their insurance guarantees and compute premium amounts, and all producers are required to submit a notice of loss and production information to determine the amount of an indemnity payment in the event of an insured cause of crop loss. Whether a producer has 10 acres or 1,000 acres, there is no difference in the kind of information collected. To ensure crop insurance is available to small entities, the Federal Crop Insurance Act authorizes FCIC to waive collection of administrative fees from limited resource farmers. FCIC believes this waiver helps to ensure that small entities are given the same opportunities as large entities to manage their risks through the use of crop insurance. A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not been prepared since this regulation does not have an impact on small entities, and therefore, this regulation is exempt from the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605).

This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.450.

This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which require intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. See the Notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, published at 48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983.

This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988 on civil justice reform. The provisions of this rule will not have a retroactive effect. The provisions of this rule will preempt State and local laws to the extent such State and local laws are inconsistent herewith. With respect to any direct action taken by FCIC or action by FCIC to require the insurance provider to take specific action under the terms of the crop insurance policy, the administrative appeal provisions published at 7 CFR part 11 must be exhausted before any action against FCIC for judicial review may be brought.

This action is not expected to have a significant economic impact on the quality of the human environment, health, or safety. Therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is needed.

This rule finalizes changes to the Common Crop Insurance Regulations (7 CFR part 457), Macadamia Tree Crop Insurance Provisions and Macadamia Nut Crop Insurance Provisions that were published by FCIC on August 1, 2014, as a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register at 79 FR 44719-44722. The public was afforded 60 days to submit comments after the regulation was published in the Federal Register.

A total of 23 comments were received from two commenters. The commenters were an insurance service organization and a producer association.

The public comments received regarding the proposed rule and FCIC's responses to the comments are as follows:

Comment: One commenter agrees with the proposal to add definitions for “damaged” and “scaffold limb.”

Response: FCIC thanks the commenter for its review and its support of the addition of these two definitions.

Comment: One commenter states the first sentence in redesignated paragraph (a) states that optional units by legal description or by irrigated/non-irrigated practices are not applicable; and the second sentence states that “. . . Optional units may be established ONLY if each optional unit is located on non-contiguous land, unless otherwise allowed by written agreement” [emphasis added]. The commenter states that neither sentence addresses the possibility of optional units for organic and conventional practices, which is allowed according to section 34(c)(3) of the Basic Provisions. As written, this provision appears to mean that separate optional units for organic and conventional acreage would be possible only if they happen to be on non-contiguous land or unless allowed by written agreement. If that is the intention, it would be clearer to include “organic practices” in the first sentence as not applicable. If it is not intended to exclude optional units by organic/conventional practices, the second sentence should be revised to clarify that optional units by non-contiguous land may be “in addition to” the optional units by organic/conventional allowed in section 34(c)(3) of the Basic Provisions.

Response: FCIC intends for optional units to be allowed on acreage located on non-contiguous land or on acreage grown and insured under an organic farming practice. FCIC does not intend to require that optional units distinguished by organic and conventional practices must also be located on non-contiguous land. FCIC has revised the provisions accordingly.

Comment: One commenter states the “Background” explains that the proposal to remove the 80-acre minimum requirement for optional units is because most macadamia tree orchards are smaller than that, and the other proposed changes (requiring a clear and discernible break, and records) “. . . will mitigate any potential abuse from this change.” The commenter has no objection to this change.

Response: FCIC agrees with the commenter and thanks it for its support. FCIC also notes that the planned removal of this 80-acre optional unit minimum requirement was inadvertently described in the proposed rule summary. The discussion of this requirement removal was also described in specific detail under the description of changes for this rule at Section 2. Therefore, FCIC removed this inadvertent reference from the final rule summary because specific mention of this proposal in the proposed rule summary was inadvertent and duplicative. This removal of the duplicative language from the proposed rule summary does not affect the commenter's agreement with the proposal: FCIC continues to agree with the commenter, and the proposal as originally proposed has been adopted.

Comment: One commenter states if the current section 2(a) is deleted as proposed, then Basic Provisions sections 34(b)(1), (3) and (4) will apply, meaning optional units will require a clear and discernible break, and acceptable and verifiable records. The commenter has no objection to this change.

Response: FCIC agrees with the commenter that by deleting section 2(a) of the Macadamia Tree Crop Provisions, sections 34(b)(1), (3) and (4) of the Basic Provisions will apply. FCIC thanks the commenter for its support.

Comment: One commenter states the proposed change would require that optional units must have a “clear and discernable break between optional units.” This is clarified further by stating “optional units may be established only if each optional unit is located on non-contiguous land.” There is no clear definition of what constitutes a “clear and discernable break.” It does disqualify optional units determined by “section, section equivalent, or FSA farm serial number and by irrigated and non-irrigated practices.”

Without a clear specification for what actually fits their definition for the “clear and discernable break,” there is great potential for a broad interpretation from the Risk Management Agency that would ultimately prohibit larger operations from using optional units at all. Since large operations have significantly varied conditions over the span of their operations that can cause production loss over only certain sections (such as differences in rainfall, elevation, soil-type, disease and pest-incidence, etc.), optional units are important and necessary to provide operations with some security to protect from losses. Without the optional units, an operation becomes far more vulnerable, since only significant orchard-wide production losses would ever qualify for a claim. It becomes financially infeasible to even have insurance for many producers with such limitations. This rule change should not pass without explicit definitions of what would qualify as a “clear and discernible break.”

Based on how the insurance companies had treated boundaries in the past with regards to the formation of optional units, a clear and discernible break should be defined by a designated production area (for instance, a block or field) with a set acreage that has enough production statistics for the APH to qualify for insurance. For instance, in our operation, we have had the same fields that have remained consistent since planting. Each field should be able to qualify as a block, as production statistics are kept for each field separately.

Response: FCIC agrees with the commenter that the proposed change to remove paragraph (a) requires optional units to have a clear and discernible break. Paragraph (a) states sections 34(b)(1), (3) and (4) of the Basic Provisions are not applicable. These sections of the Basic Provisions state, among other things, that the crop must be planted in a manner such that there is a clear and discernible break between optional units. By removing paragraph (a), sections 34(b)(1), (3) and (4) of the Basic Provisions now become applicable. Under the current policy, insureds who utilize optional units can manipulate their unit boundaries to maximize indemnities because there is no current requirement for discernible breaks between units. FCIC believes this requirement will minimize program abuse as it relates to unit division. Based on a previous comment, FCIC has revised Section 2 to clarify that optional units are allowed by non-contiguous land or by organic and conventional acreage, thereby giving producers multiple options to insure their acreage under optional units. FCIC does not define “clear and discernible break” in its policy; however, in general, when a term is not specifically defined in the policy, its common or ordinary meaning may be applicable as found in a standard dictionary. Examples of a clear and discernible break are highways, railroads and rivers. No change has been made.

Comment: One commenter recommends deleting the first comma in the following sentence: “In lieu of the provisions in section 9 of the Basic Provisions, that prohibit insurance attaching to a crop planted with another crop . . .” The commenter says this change will be consistent with a similar change proposed in section 8 of the Macadamia Nut Crop Provisions.

Response: FCIC agrees with the commenter. The comma is not necessary and its removal does not change the meaning of the provision. FCIC has revised the provisions accordingly.

Comment: One commenter states the proposed rule adds a phrase about destroyed trees in the following phrase so it would read: “. . . allow us to inspect all insured acreage before pruning any damaged trees, removing any damaged trees, or removing any destroyed trees.” This can be left as written, but consider if either of these alternatives might be preferable:

• “. . . before pruning or removing any damaged trees, or removing any destroyed trees.” This keeps the current wording about the two possible actions for damaged trees, and adds the new phrase about removing destroyed trees.

• “. . . before pruning any damaged trees, or removing any damaged or destroyed trees.” This would put “pruning” in one phrase (applying only to damaged trees) and “removing” in another (whether the trees are damaged or destroyed).

Response: FCIC appreciates the recommendations. However, FCIC believes its proposed language offers the option of the possibilities least likely to create misunderstanding because each action word is individually paired with the tree type (damaged vs. destroyed) for which the action is prohibited.

Comment: One commenter states that, concerning halting of cleanup following tree damage, during the most recent experience with Hurricane Iselle, it took the insurance companies around two weeks, and in some cases longer, to fly appraisers to Hawaii to assess storm damage. For any agricultural operation, especially during harvest season, waiting that long to remove damaged trees, branches, and other debris can pose not only safety hazards, but can also limit movement throughout orchards and can lead to crop loss due to the inability of harvest equipment and crews to safely traverse through the areas of damage.

The majority of the insurance companies are located on the continental United States, so they typically wait to hear from all of the insured operations in Hawaii before deploying loss adjusters. This is due to the distance and the large expense of sending people back and forth. In light of these limitations, it is not practical or fair to make farms wait so long before cleaning up. The alternatives to these rule changes would be either to not change this rule or to add to the change a requirement for tree loss appraisers to be on-site no later than three days after notice of a major crop or tree loss.

Response: FCIC understands that it may take insurance companies additional time to travel to Hawaii than to travel within the continental United States. This inspection requirement is consistent with the provisions in other Crop Provisions, such as the Hawaii Tropical Tree Crop Provisions, which also provide coverage for crops in Hawaii. Travel could be difficult after a catastrophic event, such as a named storm. Therefore, a regulatory provision always requiring insurance company presence on-site within three days after notice of a loss is inappropriate in part because not all circumstances will always allow such Loss Adjuster to arrive within that timeframe. A three-day arrival expectation may be appropriate in some, though not necessarily all, instances of loss. Insurance companies are required to arrive onsite after receiving a notice of loss within appropriate time frames. For example, the current Loss Adjustment Manual (LAM), in paragraph 41(A)(3), provides guidance that insurance companies must assign notice of damage to adjusters as quickly as possible to assure timely service to the insured. FCIC will, as it generally does in widespread loss situations, monitor the performance of and loss adjustment service provided by insurance companies in responding to a loss event.

Comment: One commenter states with the example added in section 11(b)(4), consider if the parenthetical example in section 11(b)(3)(iii) is still useful or if it could be deleted. If it is kept, consider deleting the phrase “. . . specified in section 11(b)(3) . . .” since it is part of 11(b)(3).

Response: Given that no change to this provision was proposed, and the public was not provided an opportunity to comment, FCIC declines to adopt the recommendation in the final rule. No change has been made.

Comment: One commenter states the calculations in paragraph (b)(4) at step (3)(ii) and (iii) do not appear to correspond to the description of those steps in paragraph (b)(3) because the example includes additional calculations as well. The example appears to work out correctly, but it might be worth considering the following:

• In paragraph (b)(4) at step (3)(ii), if the calculation of the “actual percent of loss” should be identified as such, or included in the introductory paragraph instead; and/or

• In paragraph (b)(4) at step (3)(iii), if the calculation of the dollar amount of loss [“. . . and $58,500 total amount of insurance × 6.0 percent loss = $3,510 loss”] should be better identified [since step (3) says only to divide the previous result by the coverage level] or perhaps moved to be part of the final step (4).

Response: FCIC agrees with the commenter that the steps in paragraph (b) do not correspond with the calculations in the settlement of claim example. FCIC agrees with both of the commenters' recommendations to clarify the steps in paragraph (b). FCIC has revised the provisions as recommended, has made additional clarifications in the steps in paragraph (b), and has revised the settlement of claim example at redesignated paragraph (b)(5) to reflect the revisions in paragraph (b).

Comment: One commenter recommends, in the introduction of paragraph (b)(4) of the settlement of claim example, to add a hyphen in “Thirty five trees. . . .” so it reads, “Thirty-five trees . . .”

Response: FCIC agrees with the commenter and has revised the provisions in redesignated paragraph (b)(5) accordingly.

Comment: One commenter recommends correcting the spelling of “floatation” to “flotation” in the definition of “floaters.”

Response: FCIC agrees with the commenter, even though “floatation” is an accepted spelling of “flotation,” and has revised the provisions accordingly.

Comment: One commenter states the definition of “wet in-shell” is revised to say that it excludes floaters and peewees, which FCIC claims are terms commonly used in the Macadamia industry. While the terms are sometimes used, there are some issues with the suggested use of these terms and how the FCIC defines them. For starters, there was no consultation with processors or husking operations to ascertain what the industry-accepted definition of “wet in-shell” is. Furthermore, the term “floater” has a different definition to the Macadamia nut industry than is suggested by FCIC and in actuality is seldom used. This is primarily because float grading is not a common practice for Macadamia nut husking or processing and when it is employed, it is typically performed at a different stage in the husking operation than what FCIC has suggested in their interpretation of the rules. It is believed that the reason that the FCIC is recommending this change is in response to a claim dispute, in order to validate FCIC's stance against the industry standards. The commenter states FCIC would essentially create an ultimatum for the industry that producers would either need to request their processors to change their processing methods or face the penalty of not qualifying for crop insurance. The cost of making infrastructural changes in order to comply with these proposed changes would be high, so many processors may be discouraged from making these changes, given that many only purchase nuts from producers and have no stake in the rules governing crop insurance. The rule change would essentially create an impossible standard for producers to ever qualify for crop insurance.

Though it was stated in the past that the industry was consulted in the development of the Macadamia nut policy, the policy as it is currently written does not reflect this. It is recommended that (1) the definition of “wet in-shell” be amended, (2) the industry be given an opportunity to provide input on how things operate in Hawaii, and (3) how the policy could be amended to better represent reality.

The revision to the definition of “wet in-shell” should be according to what is common to the industry. Wet in-shell (WIS) nuts are the result after husking has been implemented; this WIS weight is considered a gross number; the “extraneous materials” percentage is used to calculate the amount to subtract from the WIS number to come up with a net WIS. The “extraneous materials” percentage or trash is calculated in a quality analysis lab using samples obtained from the husking operation. While sample collection may vary from one operation to the next, this method of determining the net WIS is basically the same across the industry.

Response: FCIC disagrees with the commenter's understanding of changes to the “wet in-shell” definition. The language FCIC proposes to incorporate in the Crop Provisions definition is derived from the Special Provisions as well as the Macadamia Nut Loss Adjustment Standards Handbook (LASH). The Special Provisions and LASH are part of the policy or are used to service the policy. FCIC is not changing the definition meaning by incorporating the Special Provisions and LASH statements into the definition. The Special Provisions statement has been in effect since the 2006 crop year and the LASH definition has been in effect since the 2005 crop year.

The commenter says they believe the reason FCIC is recommending the change to the definition of “wet in-shell” is in response to a claim dispute, in order to validate FCIC's stance against the industry standards. The commenter says FCIC would essentially create an ultimatum for the industry that producers would either need to request their processors to change their processing methods or face the penalty of not qualifying for crop insurance. The commenter says the change would essentially create an impossible standard for producers to ever qualify for crop insurance. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, FCIC is not making a substantial change to the definition of “wet in-shell.” The primary change is to incorporate language contained in the Special Provisions and LASH that are currently in effect and have been in effect since the 2006 and 2005 crop years, respectively. Since this change is not substantial, this definition has already existed in large part, and was required for use in policy servicing, FCIC does not agree that such change creates an ultimatum for producers.

Furthermore, FCIC's definition of “wet in-shell,” as now updated, corresponds with the definition the commenter seeks for the industry concerns. The commenter says wet in-shell nuts are the result after husking has been implemented (gross weight) and the “extraneous materials” percentage or trash is used to calculate the amount that is subtracted from the gross weight. The difference between the gross weight and the “extraneous materials” percentage or trash is the wet in-shell net weight. FCIC's definition says the wet in-shell weight is the weight after removal of the husk (gross weight) and excluding floaters and peewees (extraneous material or trash) but prior to being dried. The industry agrees FCIC should not include floaters and peewees in the wet in-shell weight for purposes of production to count, and refers to such floaters and peewees as “trash” or “extraneous materials.” FCIC understands the comment to assume FCIC requires all macadamia nut production to be float graded using water flotation for insurance purposes. However, this assumption is incorrect. Under the policy, float grading using water flotation is only one acceptable method of determining floaters to exclude from production to count. To clarify and specifically address the commenter's concern regarding industry practices, FCIC has specifically added to the definition of wet in-shell, through the component definition of floaters, a reference that laboratory testing for floater determination is also acceptable as an alternative to float grading using water floatation. In sum, FCIC requires that the reported production must not include floaters and peewees, or, in other words, the weight of the trash, which the industry and FCIC now similarly define.

In the proposed rule, FCIC proposed to define the terms “floaters” and “peewees” because those terms are used in the Special Provisions statement and LASH definitions that were proposed for incorporation into the “wet in-shell” definition. Those terms were not previously defined within the Crop Provisions, but they were defined in the Macadamia Nut LASH. The LASH has contained those terms and their definitions since the 2005 crop year.

The proposed rule comment period is an opportunity for the public to provide input on changes FCIC proposes to make to the Crop Provisions. Interested parties are permitted to provide comments during that time. If the commenter had specific suggestions for recommended changes to this portion of the Macadamia Nut Crop Provisions, the commenter had an opportunity to provide specific proposed changes on this issue during the proposed rule comment period. However, FCIC has made an addition to the definition that will address the commenter's industry concern.

Comment: One commenter recommends deleting the comma in the phrase “wet, in-shell pounds” in the definition of “production guarantee (per acre)” to match the defined term of “wet in-shell,” as was done in sections 6(d) and 11(c).

Response: FCIC agrees with the commenter that the comma should be removed from the sentence. The comma is not necessary and its removal does not change the meaning of the provision. FCIC has revised the provisions accordingly.

Comment: One commenter recommends adding a comma before the added phrase “. . . excluding floaters and peewees . . .” in the definition of “wet in-shell.”

Response: FCIC disagrees with the commenter. A comma would not add clarity.

Comment: One commenter states if the current paragraph (a) is deleted as proposed, then Basic Provisions section 34(b)(1) will apply, meaning optional units will require a clear and discernible break, and acceptable and verifiable records. The commenter has no objection to this change.

Response: FCIC agrees with the commenter that by deleting paragraph (a) of the Macadamia Tree Crop Provisions, section 34(b)(1) of the Basic Provisions will apply. FCIC thanks the commenter for its support.

Comment: One commenter states that the first sentence in section 2 states that optional units by legal description or by irrigated/non-irrigated practices are not applicable; and the second sentence states that “. . . Optional units may be established ONLY if each optional unit is located on non-contiguous land, unless otherwise allowed by written agreement” [emphasis added]. The commenter states that neither sentence addresses the possibility of optional units for organic and conventional practices, which is allowed according to section 34(c)(3) of the Basic Provisions. As written, this provision appears to mean that separate optional units for organic and conventional acreage would be possible only if they happen to be on non-contiguous land or unless allowed by written agreement. If that is the intention, it would be clearer to include “organic practices” in the first sentence as not applicable. If it is not intended to exclude optional units by organic/conventional practices, the second sentence should be revised to clarify that optional units by non-contiguous land may be “in addition to” the optional units by organic/conventional allowed in section 34(c)(3) of the Basic Provisions.

Response: FCIC intends for optional units to be allowed on acreage located on non-contiguous land or grown and insured under an organic farming practice. FCIC does not intend to require that optional units distinguished by organic and conventional practices must also be located on non-contiguous land. FCIC has revised the provisions accordingly.

Comment: One commenter states the “Background” explains that the proposal to remove the 80-acre minimum requirement for optional units is because most macadamia tree orchards are smaller than that, and the other proposed changes (requiring a clear and discernible break, and records) “. . . will mitigate any potential abuse from this change.” The commenter has no objection to this change.

Response: FCIC agrees with the commenter and thanks it for its support.

Comment: One commenter recommends shifting the following phrase in paragraph (b): “. . . on the yield potential of the insured crop” from the end of the first sentence to be ahead of the list, so it would read: “. . . based on our estimate of the effect on the yield potential of the insured crop of the following: Interplanted perennial crop; removal of trees; damage; change in practices and any other circumstance. If you fail . . .”

Response: Given that no change to this provision was proposed, and the public was not provided an opportunity to comment, FCIC declines to adopt the recommendation in the final rule. In addition, this language is consistent with other Crop Provisions, such as Texas Citrus Fruit and Arizona-California Citrus. No change has been made.

Comment: One commenter recommends revising the following sentence in paragraph (d), “Each crop year you must report your production from two crop years ago . . .” to “. . . from two crop years before . . .”

Response: Given that no change to this provision was proposed, and the public was not provided an opportunity to comment, FCIC declines to adopt the recommendation in the final rule. In addition, this language is consistent with other Crop Provisions, such as Texas Citrus Fruit and Arizona-California Citrus. No change has been made.

Comment: One commenter agrees the wording change from “. . . we may agree in writing . . .” to “. . . we may give our approval in writing . . .” in paragraph (d) makes it less likely for this to be taken as a reference to a written agreement.

Response: FCIC agrees with the commenter and thanks it for its support.

Comment: One commenter states the second sentence in paragraph (d) sounds a bit odd when it refers to “. . . approval in writing to insure ACREAGE that has not yet reached this age . . .”, referring to the requirement in the first sentence that the insured crop be “. . . grown on TREES that have reached at least the fifth growing season . . .” Since the second sentence goes on to say coverage on this under-age acreage can be approved “. . . if IT has produced at least 200 pounds of (wet in-shell) macadamia nuts per ACRE in a previous crop year”, maybe the word “acreage” is correct and no change is needed. But one possible alternative to consider might be: “. . . to insure acreage of trees that have not reached this age . . .”

Response: Given that no change to this provision was proposed, and the public was not provided an opportunity to comment, FCIC declines to adopt the recommendation in the final rule. In addition, the original Macadamia Nut Crop Provisions are written with this language because nut production, not nut trees, is insured under these particular Crop Provisions. No change has been made.

Comment: One commenter states the proposal is to add the phrase “or as specified in the Special Provisions” to paragraph (a)(2), so paragraph (a)(2) would read as follows: “The calendar date for the end of the insurance period for each crop year is the second June 30th after insurance attaches, or as specified in the Special Provisions.” According to the “Background”, this “. . . will provide flexibility to update this date if the need arises.” The commenter does not object to providing flexibility to make the program work better, though it can also add some complexity by making the calendar date subject to change, meaning it must be looked up in the Special Provisions for the applicable county to be certain the date is unchanged.

Response: FCIC agrees with the commenter that the added phrase provides flexibility to make the program work better. This flexibility eliminates the administrative burden of revising the regulation if FCIC determines the calendar date for the end of insurance period should be different than what is stated in the Crop Provisions. In addition, the change does not add the complexity issue raised by the commenter because a policyholder must always read the Special Provisions to ensure it is aware of any changes to any issue covered by the Special Provisions, which may extend beyond changes to the end of the insurance period. No change has been made.

Accordingly, as set forth in the preamble, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation amends 7 CFR part 457 effective for the 2016 and succeeding crop years for macadamia trees and for the 2017 and succeeding crop years for macadamia nuts as follows:

The final and temporary regulations (TD 9713) that are the subject of this correction is under section 6045 of the Internal Revenue Code.

As published, the final and temporary regulations (TD 9713) contains errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification.

Accordingly, the final and temporary regulations (TD 9713), that are the subject of FR Doc. 2015-05648, are corrected as follows:

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. Additional details regarding this emergent event were received from the event sponsor after the annual permitting process but not received in sufficient time for the Coast Guard to publish an NPRM and solicit public comments before the occurrence of the event. Thus, waiting for a notice and comment period to run would inhibit the Coast Guard from protecting the public and vessels from hazards associated with the event.

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

On Saturday, April 18, 2015, from 6 a.m. to 1 p.m. an organized racing event will take place on the Maumee River where participants will row shell boats from the Craig Memorial Bridge at River Mile 3.30 to the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Bridge at River Mile 4.30 on the Maumee River in Toledo, OH. The Captain of the Port Detroit has determined that this boat race, due to its close proximity to watercraft and being in the shipping channel, poses extra and unusual hazards to public safety and property, including potential collisions, allisions, and individuals falling into the water. Establishing a special local regulated area is necessary to protect persons and property at these events and help minimize the associated risks.

This rule will be enforced 6 a.m. until 1 p.m. on April 18, 2015. The Coast Guard requires that all vessels transiting the area proceed at a no-wake speed and maintain extra vigilance at all times.

Vessel traffic may proceed down the West side of the river at a no wake speed during racing. The races will stop for oncoming freighter or commercial traffic. The on-scene representative or event sponsor representatives may permit vessels to transit the area when no race activity is occurring. The on-scene representative may be present on any Coast Guard, state or local law enforcement vessel assigned to patrol the event.

This temporary Special Local Regulation will encompass all U.S. waters on the Maumee River, Toledo, OH from the Craig Memorial Bridge at River Mile 3.30 to the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Bridge at River Mile 4.30.

The Captain of the Port will notify the affected segments of the public of the enforcement of this Special Local Regulation by all appropriate means, including a Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners.

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

This temporary final rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We conclude that this temporary final rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The temporary Special Local Regulation will be relatively small and be enforced for a relatively short time. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The 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 temporary final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This temporary final rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the portion of the Maumee River discussed above from 6 a.m. until 1 p.m. on April 18, 2015.

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

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

This temporary final rule will call 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 determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of a special local regulation issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade and therefore is categorically excluded under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction. During the annual permitting process for this boat racing event an environmental analysis was conducted to include the effects of this special local regulation.

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking with respect to this rule because waiting for a notice and comment period to run would be impracticable. The final details of this boat race were not provided from the event sponsor to the Coast Guard with sufficient time for the Coast Guard to publish an NPRM and solicit public comments before the occurrence of the event. Thus, waiting for a notice and comment period to run would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect the public from the hazards associated with this boat race.

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

On April 25, 2015, the Wyandotte Boat Club is holding a rowing race that will require the immediate area to be clear of all vessel traffic. The rowing race will occur from 7 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. The Captain of the Port Detroit has determined that the likely combination of recreation vessels, commercial vessels, and large numbers of spectators in close proximity to the boat race along the water pose extra and unusual hazards to public safety and property. Thus, the Captain of the Port Detroit has determined that establishing a Special Local Regulation around the location of the race's course will help minimize risks to safety of life and property during this event.

This rule will be enforced from 7 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. on April 25, 2015. It will encompass all waters of the Detroit River, Trenton Channel between the following two lines going from bank-to-bank: The first line is drawn directly across the channel from position 42°10′58″ N., 083°9′23″ W. (NAD 83); the second line, to the north, is drawn directly across the channel from position 42°11′44″ N., 083°8′56″ W. (NAD 83). This regulation will be enforced on April 25, 2015, from 7 a.m. until 4:30 p.m.

Two thirds of the Trenton Channel on the western portion of the regulated area, from the Wyandotte shoreline to a point approximately 670 feet east into the channel, will be designated as the race zone, while the remaining third portion on the eastern side of the regulated area, approximately 330 feet in width, will be designated as a spectator zone for pleasure crafts.

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the regulated area is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated on-scene representative. Entry into and transiting within the spectator zone of the regulated area is only authorized at no-wake speed and requires the authorization of the Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative. The races will stop for oncoming freighter or commercial traffic. The on-scene representative or event sponsor representatives may permit vessels to transit the area when no race activity is occurring. The on-scene representative may be present on any Coast Guard, state or local law enforcement vessel assigned to patrol the event.

The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative will notify the affected segments of the public of the enforcement of this rule by all appropriate means, including a Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

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

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

We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues.

The Coast Guard's use of this special local regulation will be of relatively small size and short duration, and it is designed to minimize the impact on navigation. Moreover, vessels may, when circumstances allow, obtain permission from the Captain of the Port to transit through the area affected by this special local regulations. Overall, the Coast Guard expects minimal impact to vessel movement from the enforcement of this special local regulation.

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 affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in this portion of the Trenton Channel near Wyandotte, MI between 7 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. on April 25, 2015.

This special local regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This rule will only be in effect and enforced for less than 10 hours on one day. The race event will be temporarily stopped for any deep draft vessels transiting through the shipping lanes. The Coast Guard will give notice to the public via a Broadcast Notice to Mariners that the regulation is in effect, allowing vessel owners and operators to plan accordingly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of a special local regulation issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade, and, therefore it is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. During the annual permitting process for this event an environmental analysis was conducted, and thus, no preliminary environmental analysis checklist or Categorical Exclusion Determination (CED) are required for this rulemaking action. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

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

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

The special local regulations listed in 33 CFR 100.501 and safety zones listed in 33 CFR 165.506 were last amended on July 21, 2014 (79 FR 42197).

On February 13, 2015, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Special Local Regulations and Safety Zones; Recurring Marine Events and Fireworks Displays within the Fifth Coast Guard District” in the Federal Register (80 FR 7994). We received one favorable comment on the proposed rule.

No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

This rulemaking is authorized by 33 U.S.C. 1231, 1233; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 160.5; and DHS Delegation No. 0170.1. It updates the list of permanent special local regulations at 33 CFR 100.501 and safety zones at 33 CFR 165.506, established for recurring marine events and fireworks displays at various locations within the Fifth Coast Guard District area of responsibility (AOR). The Fifth Coast Guard District AOR is defined in 33 CFR 3.25.

Publishing these regulatory updates in a single rulemaking promotes efficiency and provides the public with notice through publication in the Federal Register of the upcoming recurring marine events and fireworks displays and their accompanying regulations, special local regulations, and safety zones.

Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, MD submitted changes for a special local regulation for marine event and a safety zone for fireworks display that were published on February 13, 2015 in the notice of proposed rulemaking. The changes are included in the Table to § 100.501, (b.) line 23, Date. The date for this marine event was expanded to include the 3rd Sunday. Change was made to the Table to § 165.506, (b.) line 1, Regulated Area. The regulated area for this fireworks display was changed to 500 yard radius. This change was made to provide a larger safety buffer within Washington Channel due to the anticipated high density of spectator vessels that typically congregate for this event. These changes do not affect the location or total number of regulated areas previously listed in the NPRM.

One commenter generally supported the proposed listing of all marine events in the Fifth District area of responsibility. No changes were made to the proposed rule based upon this comment.

This rule adds 2 new special local regulations for marine events, removes 1 regulation and revises 10 previously established regulations for marine events listed in the Table to § 100.501. Other than changes to the dates and locations of certain events, the other provisions in 33 CFR 100.501 remain unchanged.

The Coast Guard has revised regulations at 33 CFR 100.501 by adding 2 new special local regulations. The special local regulations are listed in Table 1, including reference by section as printed in the Table to § 100.501.

One previously published special local regulation for marine event was removed from 33 CFR 100.501, i.e. “Ragin on the River” power boat race that took place on the Susquehanna River, near Port Deposit, MD.

This rule revises 10 preexisting special local regulations that involve change to marine event date(s) and/or coordinates. These events are listed in Table 2, with reference by section as printed in the Table to § 100.501.

Based on the nature of marine events, large number of participants and spectators, and event locations, the Coast Guard has determined that the events listed in this rule could pose a risk to participants or waterway users if normal vessel traffic were to interfere with the event. Possible hazards include risks of participant injury or death resulting from near or actual contact with non-participant vessels traversing through the regulated areas. In order to protect the safety of all waterway users including event participants and spectators, this rule establishes special local regulations for the time and location of each marine event.

This rule prevents vessels from entering, transiting, mooring or anchoring within areas specifically designated as regulated areas during the periods of enforcement unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP), or designated Coast Guard Patrol Commander. The designated “Patrol Commander” includes Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been designated by the COTP to act on their behalf. On-scene patrol commander may be augmented by local, State or Federal officials authorized to act in support of the Coast Guard.

This rule adds 6 new safety zones, removes 1 safety zone and revises 12 previously established safety zones listed in the Table to § 165.506. Other than changes to the dates and locations of certain safety zones, the other provisions in 33 CFR 165.506 remain unchanged.

The Coast Guard has revised the regulations at 33 CFR 165.506 by adding 6 new safety zone locations to the permanent regulations listed in this section. The new safety zones are listed in Table 3, including reference by section as printed in the Table to § 165.506.

One safety zone was removed from 33 CFR 165.506, specifically, the fireworks display that took place over the Potomac River, near Newburg, MD.

The rule revises 12 preexisting safety zones that involve change to event date(s) and coordinates. These revised safety zones are shown in Table 4, with reference by section as printed in the Table to § 165.506.

Each year, organizations in the Fifth Coast Guard District sponsor fireworks displays in the same general location and time period. Each event uses a barge or an on-shore site near the shoreline as the fireworks launch platform. A safety zone is used to control vessel movement within a specified distance surrounding the launch platforms to ensure the safety of persons and property. Coast Guard personnel on scene may allow boaters within the safety zone if conditions permit.

The enforcement period for these safety zones is from 5:30 p.m. to 1 a.m. local time. However, vessels may enter, remain in, or transit through these safety zones during this time frame if authorized by the COTP or designated Coast Guard patrol commander on scene, as provided for in 33 CFR 165.23. This rule provides for the safety of life on navigable waters during the events.

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

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

This finding is based on the short amount of time that vessels will be restricted from regulated areas, and the small size of these areas that are usually positioned away from high vessel traffic zones. Generally vessels would not be precluded from getting underway, or mooring at any piers or marinas currently located in the vicinity of the regulated areas. Advance notifications would also be made to the local maritime community by issuance of Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Marine information and facsimile broadcasts so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Notifications to the public for most events will typically be made by local newspapers, radio and TV stations. The Coast Guard anticipates that these special local regulated areas and safety zones will only be enforced one to three times per year.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

(1) This rule will affect the following entities some of which may be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in these regulated areas during the times the zones are enforced.

(2) These special local regulated areas and safety zones will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The Coast Guard will ensure that small entities are able to operate in the areas where events are occurring to the extent possible while ensuring the safety of event participants and spectators. The enforcement period will be short in duration and, in many of the areas, vessels can transit safely around the regulated area. Generally, blanket permission to enter, remain in, or transit through these regulated areas will be given, except during the period that the Coast Guard patrol vessel is present. Before the enforcement period, we will issue maritime advisories widely.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves implementation of regulations within 33 CFR part 100 that apply to organized marine events on the navigable waters of the United States. Some marine events by their nature may introduce potential for adverse impact on the safety or other interest of waterway users or waterfront infrastructure within or close proximity to the event area. The category of water activities includes but is not limited to sail boat regattas, boat parades, power boat racing, swimming events, crew racing, and sail board racing. This section of the rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are not required for this section of the rule.

This rule involves implementation of regulations at 33 CFR part 165 that establish safety zones on navigable waters of the United States for fireworks events. These safety zones are enforced for the duration of fireworks display events. The fireworks are generally launched from or immediately adjacent to navigable waters of the United States. The category of activities includes fireworks launched from barges or at the shoreline that generally rely on the use of navigable waters as a safety buffer. Fireworks displays may introduce potential hazards such as accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. This section of the rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR parts 100 and 165 as follows:

On December 22, 2014, the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Coquille River, Coos Bay, OR” in the Federal Register (79 FR 76249). We received four comments on the proposed rule but these comments did not address the substance of this rulemaking. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

ODOT owns and operates the US 101 Highway Bridge also known as Bullard's Drawbridge on the Coquille River in Bandon, Oregon. ODOT requested that the drawbridge regulation be amended to allow the bridge to remain in the permanently closed-to-navigation position. ODOT provided the Coast Guard with bridge logs which indicated no request for bridge openings have been received since 1998.

The Coast Guard believes this rule change is reasonable, and will continue to meet the present and future needs of navigation. Based on the records provided by ODOT to the Coast Guard, it is expected that the new rule will have no known impact to navigation or other waterway users.

US 101 Highway Bridge, in the closed-to-navigation position, provides 28.1 feet of vertical clearance at mean high water and 35 feet at low water.

The operating regulations at 33 CFR 117.875 will change the operation of the US 101 Highway Bridge, also known as Bullard's Drawbridge, on the Coquille River in Bandon, Oregon such that it will not be required to open for marine traffic at any time. The change was requested by ODOT, the owner of the bridge, because there have not been any request to open for marine traffic since 1998.

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 bases this finding on the fact that the bridge has remained in the closed position for the last 16 years without any impacts to waterway users.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Coast Guard received no comments on the NPRM for this rule and there is no indication that any small entities will be affected by this rule since the bridge has remained in the closed position for the last 16 years without any impacts to waterway users.

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

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

This rule 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 expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which 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 which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. 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.

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

Table of Acronyms BNM Broadcast Notices to Mariners DSRA Deep South Racing Association DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register LNM Local Notice to Mariners NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking A. Regulatory History and Information

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 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 public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule. The Coast Guard received notice on March 16, 2015 that this event is planned to take place May 30 and 31, 2015. Upon full review of the event details, the Coast Guard determined that additional safety measures are necessary. Completing the full NPRM process would be impracticable, delaying the effective date for this safety zone. Immediate action is necessary to protect event participants and members of the public from hazards associated with high speed boat races on the waterway. This event is advertised and the local community has planned for this event. Delaying the safety zone may also unnecessarily interfere with the planned event and possible contractual obligations.

The Coast Guard will notify the public and maritime community that the safety zone will be in effect and of its enforcement periods via broadcast notices to mariners (BNM) and will be published in the Local Notice to Mariners (LNM).

The Deep South Racing Association (DSRA) is holding a two day watercraft race competition on the Sabine River in Orange, TX on May 30 and 31, 2015. This event poses a hazard to life and property as it involves high speed watercraft racing in a narrow waterway used by other commercial and recreational vessel traffic. Additionally, the race event is likely to attract spectator craft to the area. The Coast Guard determined that a temporary safety zone is needed to protect spectators as well as persons participating in the event. The legal basis and authorities for this rulemaking establishing a safety zone are found in 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1; 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish and define regulatory safety zones.

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone encompassing all waters of the Sabine River, shoreline to shoreline, adjacent to the Naval Reserve Unit and the Orange public boat ramps located in Orange, TX. The northern boundary is from the end of Navy Pier One at 30°05′50″ N. 93°43′15″ W. then easterly to the rivers eastern shore. The southern boundary is a line shoreline to shoreline at latitude 30°05′33″ N. (NAD83).

This safety zone is needed to protect mariners and event participants from hazards associated with high speed boat races. No person or vessel may enter into or remain in the zone without permission of the Captain of the Port.

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

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

The Coast Guard has determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action for the following reasons: (1) The rule will be enforced for 9.5 hours each day for two days; (2) scheduled breaks will be provided to allow waiting vessels to transit safely through the affected area; (3) persons and vessels may enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area if they obtain permission from the Captain of the Port or the designated representative; and (4) advance notification will be made to the maritime community via BNM and LNM. Therefore, the Coast Guard enforcement of this safety zone is not a significant regulatory action.

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. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit through or remain in the safety zone area. 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 for the following reasons: (1) This rule will only be enforced from 8:30 a.m. until 6 p.m. each day that it is effective; (2) during non-enforcement hours all vessels will be allowed to transit through the safety zone without having to obtain permission from the Captain of the Port, Port Arthur or a designated representative; and (3) vessels will be allowed to pass through the zone with permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander during scheduled break periods between races and at other times when permitted by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone established for the protection of spectators from the hazards associated with a personal watercraft race competition. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A checklist and categorical exclusion determination will be provided in the docket accessible as indicated under ADDRESSES.

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

I. What is the background for this action?

On November 12, 2008 (73 FR 66964), EPA revised the Lead NAAQS, lowering the level from 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) to 0.15 µg/m3 calculated over a three-month rolling average. EPA established the NAAQS based on significant evidence and numerous health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are associated with exposures to lead emissions.

Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required by the CAA to designate areas throughout the United States as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS; this designation process is described in section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. On November 22, 2010 (75 FR 71033), EPA promulgated initial air quality designations for the 2008 Lead NAAQS, which became effective on December 31, 2010, based on air quality monitoring data for calendar years 2007-2009, where there was sufficient data to support a nonattainment designation. Designations for all remaining areas were completed on November 22, 2011 (76 FR 72097), which became effective on December 31, 2011, based on air quality monitoring data for calendar years 2008-2010. Effective December 31, 2010, the Hillsborough Area was designated as nonattainment for the 2008 Lead NAAQS. This designation triggered a requirement for Florida to submit a SIP revision with a plan for how the Area would attain the 2008 Lead NAAQS, as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than December 31, 2015.

FL DEP submitted its 2008 Lead NAAQS attainment SIP for the Hillsborough Area on June 29, 2012, as amended on June 27, 2013, which included the base year emissions inventory and the attainment demonstration. EPA proposed to approve the Hillsborough Area attainment SIP for the 2008 Lead NAAQS on February 5, 2015. EPA's analysis of the submitted attainment demonstration included a review of the pollutant addressed, emissions inventory requirements, modeling, RACT and RACM requirements, RFP plan, and contingency measures for the Hillsborough Area. Refer to EPA's February 5, 2015, proposed rulemaking for a detailed rationale on EPA's analysis of the Hillsborough area attainment demonstration. See 80 FR 6485.

EPA is taking final action to approve Florida's SIP submittal for the Hillsborough Area, as submitted through FL DEP to EPA on June 29, 2012, as amended on June 27, 2013, for the purpose of demonstrating attainment of the 2008 Lead NAAQS. Florida's lead attainment plan for the Hillsborough Area includes a base year emissions inventory, a modeling demonstration of lead attainment, an analysis of RACM/RACT, a RFP plan, and contingency measures.

EPA has determined that Florida's attainment plan for the 2008 Lead NAAQS for the Hillsborough Area meets the applicable requirements of the CAA. Thus, EPA is taking final action to approve Florida's attainment plan for the Hillsborough Area. EPA's analysis for this final action is discussed in Section IV of EPA's February 5, 2015, proposed rulemaking. See 80 FR 6485.

EPA has determined that all the criteria for Florida's lead attainment plan for the Hillsborough Area have been met. EPA has determined that Florida's June 29, 2012, SIP submission, as amended on June 27, 2013, meets the applicable requirements of the CAA. Specifically, EPA is taking final action to approve Florida's June 29, 2012, SIP submission (as amended on June 27, 2013), which includes the attainment demonstration, base year emissions inventory, RACM/RACT analysis, contingency measures and RFP plan.

EPA received one comment on March 9, 2015, from the Center for Biological Diversity and Center for Environmental Health (hereafter referred to as the “Commenter”), in response to EPA's proposed rule to approve the attainment demonstration for the Hillsborough Area for the 2008 Lead NAAQS. A summary of the comment and EPA's response is provided below.

Comment: The Commenter mentions that FDEP fails to account for the significant lead air pollution being generated by leaded aviation fuel (“avgas”) from regional airports. Specifically, the Commenter states that that the “SIP must address the significant contributions of lead air pollution from Hillsborough County's regional aviation airports and include Reasonably Available Control Technology and Reasonably Available Control Measures (“RACT/RACM”) to reduce those lead air pollution threats.”

Response: EPA does not believe that it is necessary for the attainment demonstration for the Hillsborough Area for the 2008 lead NAAQS to regulate the lead emissions resulting from avgas emitted by aircrafts using regional airports that are located near to the nonattainment area. First, although this is not determinative, there are no airports within the 2008 Lead nonattainment boundary for the Hillsborough Area to which RACT/RACM could be applied. Second, and more importantly, available information does not indicate that lead emissions from nearby airports or from general aviation aircrafts that use them are impacting receptors in the Hillsborough Area. The nonattainment area is about a 1.14 mile radius circle encompassing the EnviroFocus facility, the source that available information indicates is the sole cause of the lead NAAQS violations in this nonattainment area. Prior to making the determination concerning the appropriate boundary for the nonattainment area, EPA reviewed the technical supporting data 1 and considered all the potential sources of lead in Hillsborough County. EPA determined, based on this information that lead emissions from aircraft combusting avgas and using the regional airports did not cause or contribute to the monitored violations of the 2008 Lead NAAQS. Therefore, the designation of the Hillsborough County area excluded those airports. The closest airport where leaded avgas is used, Tampa Executive Airport is located approximately 4 miles outside the designated nonattainment boundary. Monitoring data from other locations confirm that there is a sharp decrease in lead concentrations as the distance from a lead source increases. The available technical data for the Hillsborough Area continues to support the EPA's prior conclusion that the airport sources of lead are located too distant from the area to contribute significantly to receptors in the designated nonattainment area. Consequently, EPA believes that the control measures described in the proposed rule for the EnviroFocus facility should be adequate to bring this area into attainment with the 2008 Lead NAAQS.

EPA is taking final action to approve Florida's lead attainment plan for the Hillsborough Area. EPA has determined that the SIP meets the applicable requirements of the CAA. Specifically, EPA is taking final action to approve Florida's June 29, 2012, SIP submission (as amended on June 27, 2013), which includes the attainment demonstration, base year emissions inventory, RACM/RACT analysis, contingency measures and RFP plan.

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

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

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

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

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

• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

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

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

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

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

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 CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 15, 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).

Therefore, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

You may be potentially affected by this action if you operate a training program required to be accredited under 40 CFR 745.225, or if you are an individual who must be certified to conduct renovation activities in accordance with 40 CFR 745.90. This rule applies only in states, territories, and tribal areas that do not have authorized programs pursuant to 40 CFR 745.324. For further information regarding the authorization status of States, territories, and Tribes, contact the National Lead Information Center at 1-800-424-LEAD (5323).

The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

• Building construction (NAICS code 236), e.g., single-family housing construction, multi-family housing construction, residential remodelers.

• Specialty trade contractors (NAICS code 238), e.g., plumbing, heating, and air-conditioning contractors, painting and wall covering contractors, electrical contractors, finish carpentry contractors, drywall and insulation contractors, siding contractors, tile and terrazzo contractors, glass and glazing contractors.

• Real estate (NAICS code 531), e.g., lessors of residential buildings and dwellings, residential property managers.

• Child day care services (NAICS code 624410).

• Elementary and secondary schools (NAICS code 611110), e.g., elementary schools with kindergarten classrooms.

• Other technical and trade schools (NAICS code 611519), e.g., training providers.

If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

On January 14, 2015, EPA published a proposed rule (Ref. 1) that would, among other things, amend the RRP rule's refresher training requirements (Ref 2). Specifically, EPA proposed to eliminate the hands-on requirement in the refresher training that renovators must take to maintain their certification as required by the RRP rule. This change would make it easier for renovators to take the refresher training, especially renovators who live far from a training facility. Renovators would save time and travel costs by taking the course from a single location, possibly their own home. If taking the training is made easier, EPA believes that more renovators would take the refresher training and become recertified. Having more renovators take the refresher training would lead to a higher number of certified renovators, resulting in a workforce better able to perform renovations in a lead-safe manner.

If the Agency issues a final rule eliminating the hands-on requirement, it would not happen until near the end of 2015. Unfortunately, many renovator certifications will expire before the final rule can be published. In light of this, EPA is extending certifications of a portion of certified renovators until after the expected publication of the final rule to ensure that the benefit of such elimination, if promulgated, is not denied to renovators who were among the first to take the initial training course. Under today's action, renovators who received certification on or before March 31, 2010, now have until March 31, 2016, to get recertified. Renovators who received certification between April 1, 2010 and March 31, 2011, will have one year added to their 5-year certification. Subsequent certifications for renovators receiving the extension will be five years. These extensions only apply to renovators that fall under EPA's renovation program and not to renovators under authorized state programs.

EPA is creating two sets of extensions for two reasons. First, the Agency does not want to extend the certifications more than is necessary to accommodate the potential finalization of the proposed amendments. Renovator certifications from March 2010 and before need to be extended beyond one year so they will expire after any potential changes are finalized. Second, EPA is extending an additional group of renovator certifications for one year because the Agency does not want all of the extended certifications to expire on the same day. This will prevent hundreds of thousands of renovators from seeking recertification at the same time, which could overwhelm training providers.

EPA specifically requested comment on such an extension of certifications for certain renovators and the Agency received several comments regarding an extension. Of those comments, the majority were in favor of the extension. In supporting the extension of renovator certifications, one commenter stated that it would alleviate burden on contractors that have difficulty finding a training course within a reasonable distance of them. Another commenter stated that the extension will help ensure that as many certified renovators as possible can take advantage of the burden savings associated with removing the hands-on requirement. Other commenters similarly believe that the certifications should be extended to allow renovators to take advantage of any potential changes that may be finalized. EPA agrees with these commenters and has, accordingly, extended certifications for a portion of renovators.

Several commenters who supported the extension stated that EPA should announce the extension immediately, before renovators start taking the refresher training that includes the hands-on learning. One of the commenters urged the Agency to bifurcate the certification extension from the other parts of the proposed rule in order to expedite the extension. EPA agrees that it is important to extend the certifications as soon as possible. In order to expedite the extension, the Agency has finalized it separately from the other possible changes from the proposed rule allowing it to be finalized sooner than if it were part of the larger rule that could not be finalized until later in the year.

One commenter who opposed the extension believes that it will confuse renovators in authorized states because renovators will assume the EPA extension applies to their state's program. To prevent any potential confusion, EPA would like to clarify that this final rule applies only in states where EPA implements the program and not in authorized states.

Some commenters stated that the 5-year renovator certification is too long and therefore should not be extended. The Agency disagrees about extending the certifications. EPA believes that a one-time extension is justified to allow more renovators to realize the benefits of any potential changes. By extending the certifications, EPA believes that more renovators will seek recertification leading to a higher number of certified renovators resulting in a workforce better able to perform renovations in a lead-safe manner. EPA previously explained in the preamble to the RRP rule why the Agency promulgated 5-year renovator certifications (Ref. 2)

As proposed, EPA finds under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), that good cause exists to dispense with the 30-day delay in the effective date of this final rule, for the reasons explained in the proposed rule and in this Unit. The Agency believes it is in the public interest to relieve the certification deadline for the renovators identified in this Unit, so that they may benefit from any upcoming amendments to the refresher training requirements. EPA also believes that such action would relieve a restriction in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). EPA therefore issues this final rule making this change effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

This final rule is being issued under the authority of sections 402(a) and 402(c)(3) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2682(a) and 2682(c)(3).

The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and other information considered by EPA, including documents that are referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, entitled “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., because it does not create any new reporting or recordkeeping obligations. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control number 2070-0155.

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. This rule extends the certifications for subset of renovators. Those are the only small entities directly subject to this action, and the action has a positive economic effect on them. We have therefore concluded that this action will relieve regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).

This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This final rule will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) does not apply to this action.

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.

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

Because this rulemaking does not involve technical standards, Section 12(d) of NTTAA, 15 U.S.C. 272 note, does not apply to this action.

The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations as delineated by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

Regulations governing the summer flounder fishery are in 50 CFR 648.100-648.110. These regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the coastal states from North Carolina through Maine. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state are described in § 648.10(c)(1)(i).

The final rule implementing Amendment 5 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan provided a mechanism for summer flounder quota to be transferred from one state to another (December 17, 1993; 58 FR 65936). Two or more states, under mutual agreement and with the concurrence of the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Administrator, can transfer or combine summer flounder commercial quota under § 648.102(c)(2). The Regional Administrator is required to consider the criteria in § 648.102(c)(2)(i) when evaluating requests for quota transfers or combinations.

North Carolina has agreed to transfer 11,108 lb (5,039 kg) of its 2015 commercial summer flounder quota to Virginia. This transfer was prompted by landings of the F/V Captain Ed, a North Carolina vessel that was granted safe harbor in Virginia due to mechanical failure, on March 3, 2015. As a result of these landings, a quota transfer is necessary to account for an increase in Virginia landings that would have otherwise accrued against the North Carolina quota.

The Regional Administrator has determined that the criteria set forth in § 648.102(c)(2)(i) have been met. The transfer is consistent with the criteria because it will not preclude the overall annual quota from being fully harvested, the transfer addresses an unforeseen variation or contingency in the fishery, and the transfer is consistent with the objectives of the FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The revised summer flounder commercial quotas for calendar year 2015 are: Virginia, 2,394,228 lb (1,086,003 kg); and North Carolina, 2,983,583 lb (1,353,330 kg).

This action is taken under 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.