Federal Register Vol. 80, No.76,

The Bureau previously issued an interpretive rule 1 (2013 HC Interpretive Rule) to assist lender compliance with the homeownership counseling list requirements of High-Cost Mortgage and Homeownership Counseling Amendments to the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z) and Homeownership Counseling Amendments to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA Homeownership Counseling Amendments) Final Rule (2013 HOEPA Final Rule). Based on input the Bureau has received through informal discussion and outreach with stakeholders, the Bureau is issuing this interpretive rule, which substantively restates the guidance in the 2013 HC Interpretive Rule and adds further guidance to address additional questions stakeholders have raised. Specifically, the Bureau has received questions about: (1) How to provide applicants abroad with homeownership counseling lists; (2) permissible geolocation tools; (3) combining the homeownership counseling list with other disclosures; and (4) use of a consumer's mailing address to provide the list. The Bureau has also received questions and requests for guidance about the high-cost mortgage counseling requirements in the 2013 HOEPA Final Rule, specifically concerning counselor qualifications to provide such counseling and lender participation in high-cost mortgage counseling.

To facilitate compliance and make the Bureau's guidance on these questions more generally accessible, the Bureau is issuing this official Bureau interpretation to add guidance to the 2013 HC Interpretive Rule to address these additional issues. Along with the new guidance, the instructions in the 2013 HC Interpretive Rule are republished here substantively as previously issued to keep all of this related information together for the convenience of stakeholders. New material is added to parts II. B, Location by Zip Code, and D, Accompanying Information, and new parts II. E and III. are added to discuss combining the homeownership counseling list with other disclosures and high-cost mortgage counseling, respectively.2

In January 2013, pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1375 (2010), the Bureau issued the 2013 HOEPA Final Rule.3 The 2013 HOEPA Final Rule implemented numerous Dodd-Frank Act requirements. Section 1450 of the Dodd-Frank Act amended section 5(c) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) to require lenders to provide federally related mortgage loan applicants with a “reasonably complete or updated list of homeownership counselors who are certified pursuant to section 106(e) of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701x(e)) and located in the area of the lender.” 4 The RESPA Homeownership Counseling Amendments implement this section 1450 amendment in Regulation X § 1024.20(a).

In implementing this Dodd-Frank Act requirement, § 1024.20(a)(1) requires lenders to provide the loan applicant with a written list of homeownership counseling organizations that provide relevant services in the loan applicant's location. The Bureau specified two compliance methods for obtaining this list: (1) Using a tool developed and maintained by the Bureau on its Web site,5 or (2) using data made available by the Bureau or HUD, provided that the data are used in accordance with instructions provided with the data.6 The Bureau noted the use of the data in accordance with these instructions would produce a list consistent with what would have been generated if the tool had been used.7 This rule interprets § 1024.20(a)(1) of Regulation X, as adopted by the RESPA Homeownership Counseling Amendments, and describes those data instructions.

The Bureau's tool, as discussed in § 1024.20(a)(1)(i), follows these data instructions.

This rule interprets the Regulation X § 1024.20(a)(1) requirement for lenders to provide a list of homeownership counseling organizations and to obtain the list from data made available by the Bureau or HUD, provided the data are used in accordance with instructions provided with the data.8 This rule describes instructions for lenders to use in complying with the § 1024.20(a)(1)(ii) requirement to generate a list of homeownership counseling organizations by using data provided by the Bureau or HUD.

HUD currently provides the data needed to comply with the Regulation X § 1024.20(a)(1) list requirement. HUD maintains a free and publicly available application programming interface (API) containing data on HUD-approved housing counseling agencies (HUD API). Although it appears on this site that a token is required to use the data, credentials are not required to access and use the data. These data instructions are designed to be applied with publicly available homeownership counselor agency data from HUD,9 as referenced in § 1024.20(a)(1)(ii). The Bureau also has a summary of the data instructions available on the Bureau's Web site, along with a link to the publicly available housing counseling agency data.10

Regulation X § 1024.20(a)(1) requires lenders to provide a written list of homeownership counseling organizations. Consistent with § 1024.20(a)(1), lenders comply with this requirement when they provide a list of ten HUD-approved housing counseling agencies. The tool maintained by the Bureau will generate a list of ten HUD-approved housing counseling agencies. A lender-generated list under § 1024.20(a)(1)(ii) complies with § 1024.20(a)(1) when the same number of counseling agencies are provided. Listing ten housing counseling agencies ensures fairness and equity among housing counseling agencies, by offering loan applicants a thorough and diverse list of counseling options.

Regulation X 1024.20(a)(1) requires lenders to provide a written list of homeownership counseling organizations in the loan applicant's location. As the Bureau discussed in the RESPA Homeownership Counseling Amendments, lenders comply with § 1024.20(a)(1) when they use the loan applicant's five-digit zip code to generate a list of the ten closest HUD-approved housing counseling agencies to the centroid of the zip code of the loan applicant's current address, in descending order of proximity to the centroid. Lenders are also permitted to generate the list from a more precise geographic marker, such as a street address. The loan applicant's current zip code satisfies the requirement that the homeownership counseling organizations be in the loan applicant's location. The zip code of the loan applicant's current address generally is the default to be entered for list generation, subject to additional guidance below concerning use of the loan applicant's mailing address and circumstances where a zip code is not available. Lenders may offer loan applicants the option of generating the list from a zip code different than their home address or from a more precise geographic marker such as a street address, but lenders are not required to offer such an option. The Bureau's tool will permit generating the list of HUD-approved housing counseling agencies through entry of zip code. A lender-generated list pursuant to § 1024.20(a)(1)(ii) complies with § 1024.20(a)(1) when the lender generates the list through entry of zip code or from a more precise geographic marker such as a street address. Lenders generating a list pursuant to § 1024.20(a)(1)(ii) through zip code or from a more precise geographic marker such as a street address will ensure that lists generated under this provision are obtained through similar means as those generated through the Bureau's tool, pursuant to § 1024.20(a)(1)(i), thus ensuring consistency.

In circumstances where the applicant's current address does not include a five-digit zip code, e.g., the applicant currently lives overseas, making it impossible to generate a list based on the zip code of the applicant's current address, the lender may use the five-digit zip code of the property securing the mortgage to generate the list.

Additionally, there may be circumstances where an applicant's current and mailing addresses are different. For example, an applicant residing in a remote area may receive mail at a post office box. In the case in which an applicant's current and mailing address are different, a lender using an applicant's mailing address instead of the current address to generate the list would be consistent with the requirement that the list be generated based upon the loan applicant's location. Consistent with the previous paragraph, a lender may also use an applicant's mailing address to generate a list if the mailing address includes a zip code but the current address does not.

The Bureau's tool, as discussed in § 1024.20(a)(1)(i) and above, uses a third-party, commercially-available geolocation tool to match counseling organizations to a zip code. A lender is not required to use the same geolocator or geocoding system as the Bureau, so long as the results are generated in accordance with § 1024.20 and these instructions, thus ensuring general consistency.

Regulation X § 1024.20(a)(1) requires lenders to provide a written list of homeownership counseling organizations that provide relevant services in the loan applicant's location. Consistent with § 1024.20(a)(1), lenders comply when they provide the following data fields for each housing counseling agency on the list to the extent that they are available through the HUD API: Agency name, phone number, street address, street address continued, city, state, zip code, Web site URL, email address, counseling services provided, and languages spoken. Providing a street address is preferable to providing a mailing address, as available. The tool maintained by the Bureau will provide these data fields to the extent that they are available through the HUD API. A lender-generated list under § 1024.20(a)(1)(ii) complies with § 1024.20(a)(1) when these data fields are provided to the extent that they are available through the HUD API. The table below describes how the HUD API data fields relate to the above required data fields:

Data fields that are populated with codes not commonly understood by loan applicants, including the data fields “Counseling services provided” and “Languages spoken,” should be translated into their definitional meanings, according to the Data Dictionary,7 to ensure clarity.

Lenders comply with Regulation X § 1024.20(a)(1) when the following language is included: “The counseling agencies on this list are approved by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and they can offer independent advice about whether a particular set of mortgage loan terms is a good fit based on your objectives and circumstances, often at little or no cost to you. This list shows you several approved agencies in your area. You can find other approved counseling agencies at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) Web site: consumerfinance.gov/mortgagehelp or by calling 1-855-411-CFPB (2372). You can also access a list of nationwide HUD-approved counseling intermediaries at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/ohc_nint.”

Including information about where loan applicants can gain additional information is consistent with the Bureau's preamble discussion of how it envisioned implementing the § 1024.20(a)(1) list requirement in the RESPA Homeownership Counseling Amendments.12 Giving loan applicants the link to HUD-approved national counseling intermediaries offers loan applicants additional housing counseling options, as national intermediaries often offer phone counseling and online counseling services, which are particularly useful to loan applicants in remote areas or areas with fewer counseling agencies or loan applicants who work during normal business hours and require alternative meeting time options. The Bureau's tool will generate lists under § 1024.20(a)(1)(i) that include this text above. By including this information, lenders generating lists under § 1024.20(a)(1)(ii) will comply with § 1024.20(a)(1). This will ensure that information provided under this provision is consistent with information accompanying lists generated by the Bureau's Web site, thus ensuring consistency.

Section 5(c) of RESPA does not specify whether the written list may be combined with other disclosures. In the 2013 HOEPA Final Rule, the Bureau noted it did not receive any comments concerning the ability to combine disclosures. The Bureau finalized the combined disclosure allowance in § 1024.20(a)(2), which provides that the “list of homeownership counseling organizations provided under this section may be combined and provided with other mortgage loan disclosures required pursuant to Regulation Z, 12 CFR part 1026, or this part [1024] unless prohibited by Regulation Z or this part.”

Since the 2013 HOEPA Final Rule went into effect, the Bureau has received questions as to whether the list of counseling organizations may be combined with other disclosures besides those required pursuant to Regulations X and Z. Although only disclosures pursuant to Regulations X and Z are specifically referenced in the rule, the Bureau does not consider combining the list of organizations with other mortgage loan disclosures to be a violation of § 1024.20(a), unless otherwise prohibited. As long as the other requirements of § 1024.20(a) are met, and if not otherwise prohibited, combining the list with another disclosure does not violate the rule.

This rule also interprets the Regulation Z § 1026.34(a)(5) pre-loan counseling requirement for high-cost mortgages. Specifically, this rule clarifies the qualifications necessary to provide high-cost mortgage counseling and to provide guidance on the issue of lender participation in the counseling.

Regulation Z § 1026.34(a)(5)(i) provides that a creditor “shall not extend a high-cost mortgage to a consumer unless the creditor receives written certification that the consumer has obtained counseling on the advisability of the mortgage from a counselor that is approved to provide such counseling by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or, if permitted by the Secretary, by a State housing finance authority.” The Bureau has heard informally that there has been some concern among creditors and counselors regarding both the necessary qualifications for providing high-cost mortgage counseling and what constitutes “high-cost mortgage counseling.”

Regulation Z comment 34(a)(5)(iv)-1 describes what is necessary for a consumer to have received counseling on the advisability of the high-cost mortgage. The counseling must cover: “key terms of the mortgage transaction” as set out in the relevant disclosure (usually the Good Faith Estimate or, after August 1, 2015, the Loan Estimate); “the consumer's budget, including the consumer's income, assets, financial obligations, and expenses; . . . and the affordability of the mortgage transaction for the consumer.”

The Bureau understands that these topics are currently covered by counseling agencies approved by HUD in providing counseling to prospective borrowers. As stated in the preamble for the 2013 HOEPA Final Rule, “HUD already requires counselors to analyze the financial situation of their clients and establish a household budget for their clients when providing housing counseling.” 13 To the extent that a counselor from a HUD-approved counseling agency covers the matters described in comment 34(a)(5)(iv)-1, the counseling requirement of § 1026.34(a)(5)(i) is met. Unless and until HUD limits the current scope of counseling in some way that would not include elements of the comment, counseling agencies that are already approved by HUD to offer homeownership counseling are also qualified to provide the counseling required for high-cost mortgages, provided such counseling does indeed cover the topics prescribed by comment 34(a)(5)(iv)-1. Further, the Bureau encourages creditors, counselors, and consumers to facilitate provision of the required counseling as early as feasible in the loan application process to help ensure the consumer ultimately makes an informed and considered decision.

The Bureau has also received information that consumers may be receiving high-cost mortgage counseling by telephone in a creditor's office while the creditor is present and listening-in. Such listening in may be objectionable by certain counselors, as it could diminish the quality of counseling. In the 2013 HOEPA Final Rule, the Bureau expressed a desire to implement the counseling requirement in a way that “ensures that borrowers will receive meaningful counseling, and at the same time that the required counseling can be provided in a manner that minimizes operational challenges.” 14 The Bureau added an anti-steering provision to the counseling requirement in § 1026.34(a)(5)(vi) that provides that a creditor “shall not steer or otherwise direct a consumer to choose a particular counselor or counseling organization for the counseling required. . . .” 15 The 2013 HOEPA Final Rule described the rationale behind this provision as “preserv[ing] counselor independence and prevent[ing] conflicts of interest that may arise. . .”.16

Consistent with the purpose of the high-cost mortgage counseling requirement and with the anti-steering provision at § 1026.34(a)(5)(vi) in particular, the Bureau is issuing this interpretive rule, in part, to clarify that a creditor may be steering, that is directing, if the creditor insists on participating or listening in to a counseling call or session if such behavior results in a consumer's selection of a particular counselor. Under these circumstances, creditors comply with the anti-steering provision if a counselor is allowed to request that the creditor not participate or listen on the call. A counselor also is allowed to request that a creditor participate in a call or a portion of a call. For example, a counselor may request that a creditor participate in part of the counseling session to provide additional information related to the loan.

The Bureau believes that counselor independence and impartiality, which the anti-steering provision seeks to preserve, may be adversely affected by a concern that another counselor may be selected or the content of the counseling influenced if the counselor requests that the creditor not listen to the counseling and the creditor does not agree. Counselor independence and impartiality may also be compromised by the knowledge that the creditor is listening-in to the advice given. Moreover, creditor participation in such conversations may influence loan applicants away from a full and frank conversation with an independent and impartial counselor, thus undermining the purpose of the rule.

This rule articulates the Bureau's official interpretations of the Bureau's Regulation X and Regulation Z. It is therefore exempt from the APA's notice and comment rulemaking requirements pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not require an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis. 5 U.S.C. 603(a), 604(a).

The Bureau has determined that this rule does not impose any new or revise any existing recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirements on covered entities or members of the public that would be collections of information requiring OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The RESPA requirements under Regulation X that lenders provide loan applicants with a written list of homeownership counseling organizations in the loan applicants' location are currently approved by OMB and assigned the OMB control number 3170-0025. The related TILA requirements are approved under OMB control number 3170-0023. Generally, the collections of information contained in Regulation X are assigned the OMB control number 3170-0016, and the collections of information contained in Regulation Z are assigned the OMB control number 3170-0015.

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 13, 2014 (79 FR 47393).

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2013-40, dated December 9, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

The required actions for this AD include a detailed visual inspection of the emergency release clevis of the MLG to determine if an incorrect clevis has been installed, and if necessary, replacing the clevis with a correct clevis and clevis pin. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0528-0002.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM (79 FR 47393, August 13, 2014) and the FAA's response to the comment.

Horizon Airlines stated that the Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code in paragraph (d) of the NPRM (79 FR 47393, August 13, 2014) is incorrect for the MLG, and should be 32, not 31.

We agree with the commenter. We have changed the ATA of America Code in paragraph (d) of this AD to 32, Landing Gear.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 47393, August 13, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 47393, August 13, 2014).

We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Bombardier, Inc., has issued Service Bulletin 84-32-67, dated July 8, 2009. The service information describes a visual inspection of the emergency release clevis of the MLG to determine if an incorrect clevis has been installed, and if necessary, replacing the clevis with a correct clevis and clevis pin. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. You can find this information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0528. This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

We estimate that this AD affects 18 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it will take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $3,060, or $170 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will take about 3 work-hours and require parts costing $0, for a cost of $255 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this action.

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

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

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

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

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0528; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

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

Background

On April 7, 2015, the FAA published a final rule; technical amendment in the Federal Register that made a correction to a typographical error to R-6703A, R-6703B, R-6703C, R-6703D, R-6703E and R-6703F at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA (80 FR 18519). Subsequent to publication, it was discovered that the longitude direction for R-6703A was entered as N (north) instead of W (west). The error creates an invalid geographical boundary for R-6703A. This correction replaces the abbreviation “N” with “W” in the longitude data for R-6703A.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the boundary description of restricted area R-6703A, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA, as published in the Federal Register on April 7, 2015 (80 FR 18519) (FR Doc. 2015-08005) is corrected to read as follows:

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for “the Great Steam Boat Race” in 33 CFR 100.801, Table no. 1, Line no. 3 on 04/29/2015 from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. These regulations can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 33 CFR 100.801 or in the Federal Register (77 FR 12460).

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100, a vessel may not enter the regulated area, unless it receives permission from the COTP Ohio Valley or a designated representative. Additionally, no person or vessel may enter or remain within 200 yards ahead of the lead vessel, within 200 yards astern of the last vessel, or within 200 yards on either side of any vessel. Spectator vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area but may not anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the transit of race participants or official patrol vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

This rule is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100 and 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with extensive advance notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners (LNM) and Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM). If the COTP Ohio Valley determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in the notice, he or she may use a BNM to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

Table of Acronyms CFR—Code of Federal Regulations Conrail—Consolidated Rail Corporation DHS—Department of Homeland Security FR—Federal Register NPRM—Notice of Proposed Rulemaking § —Section Symbol U.S.C.—United States Code A. Regulatory History and Information

On December 30, 2014, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled, “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Mantua Creek, Paulsboro, NJ” in the Federal Register (79 FR 78365). We received no comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

The bridge owner, Conrail, requested a change to 33 CFR 117.729 (a) due to the replacement of the existing bridge structure. Conrail also requested to modify the operating regulations due to their intent to install sensor equipment as part of the reconstruction efforts for their bridge across Mantua Creek. This rule will change three aspects of the bridge operation. Specifically, the regulations will enable (1) remote operation of the bridge, (2) installation of cameras and infrared sensors to verify whether any vessels are transiting the waterway before a bridge closure is initiated, and (3) alter the requirement for signals to be used during drawbridge movement operations. This rule will not change the operating schedule of the bridge. The original structure for the bridge at mile marker 1.4 across Mantua Creek was an A-Frame swing bridge with unlimited vertical clearance in the open position. This swing bridge is being replaced by a vertical lift bridge with a 25-foot vertical clearance in the open position. The horizontal clearance for the swing bridge was 32 feet. The vertical lift bridge will have a horizontal clearance of 44 feet.

The scope of the waterway inspection is different between the current on-site train crewmember inspection process and the range of the camera installation. There is also a difference in the time it takes between the inspection and the initiation of the bridge closure operations. Currently, the regulation requires an on-site train crewmember to conduct an inspection of the waterway for vessels by stopping the train approximately 150 feet north of the bridge site when approached from the north or 150 feet south of the bridge site when approached from the south. Once the train is stopped, the train crewmember walks to the bridge site and physically looks up and down the channel. The time it takes to stop the train, walk to the bridge, conduct the inspection, walk back to the train, and re-start the train takes 5-10 minutes. This rule allows the remote operating station to inspect the waterway with cameras without first stopping the train which permits a more efficient operating system.

The closer the vessels are to the bridge, the more likely it is that the train crewmember will see them using the process required by the current regulation. Under this rule, the camera inspection of the waterway has the capability to zoom up and down stream allowing for easier detection of a smaller vessel approaching the bridge. After inspection of the waterway, using the cameras, the bridge closing operations would then occur from a remote location at the Mt. Laurel remote operating station.

Currently, the bridge is designed to be operated by the train crew. Under this rule Conrail will operate the Mantua Creek Bridge at mile 1.4 from a remote location, the Conrail Mt. Laurel, NJ, remote operating station, at all times. A draw tender may be stationed at the bridge at various times when it is deemed necessary for safety purposes such as during times when bridge maintenance is being performed.

Conrail operates other bridges at the Mt. Laurel, NJ remote operating station. The change from on-site control of the bridge to the Mt. Laurel, NJ operating station enables Conrail to consolidate its control of the train line and Mantua Creek bridge. By controlling the track as well as the bridge operating mechanism at the Mt. Laurel station, the remote operator has access to more information regarding the anticipated arrival time for when the trains will be at the bridge site. Information such as train speed and location directly contribute to when the bridge will need to be closed. This change to a remote operating station may shorten the duration of the bridge closures due to the higher accuracy of information on train speed and anticipated arrival time at the bridge site.

The depth of Mantua Creek at the bridge is 22 feet. The diurnal tidal range is 6 feet. Mantua Creek is used by several recreational vessels during the summer boating season. There is no commercial vessel traffic on Mantua Creek.

From March through November, the bridge is in the open to navigation position and will only be lowered for the passage of train and maintenance. Train activity in this location requires the bridge to close to navigation up to eight times a day Monday thru Friday. On Saturday and Sunday, the bridge is closed up to six times each day.

From December through the end of February, the bridge is in the closed to navigation position but will open if 4 hours notice is given.

Conrail will also specify the dates when the bridge will be left in the open to navigation position from March 1 through November 30 and left in the closed to navigation position from December 1 through the last day of February. This represents a clarification of the existing regulatory language, and not a substantive change to the existing bridge schedule.

The Coast Guard provided a comment period of 45 days and no comments were received, therefore, no changes were made.

Under this rule, the responsibility to operate the drawbridge is being removed from the train crew and being transferred to the remote operating station located in Mt. Laurel, NJ. The visual examination of the waterway to confirm whether or not any vessels are present will shift from the train crew to the Mt. Laurel remote operating station. The train crew will not be required to stop and check the waterway prior to the remote operating station closing or opening the bridge. Cameras and sensors will be used to confirm whether any vessels are navigating Mantua Creek near the CONRAIL Bridge prior to closing the bridge.

From the controls at the Mt. Laurel remote operating station, the timeframe to initiate the bridge closure is not more than 15 minutes before a train will arrive at the bridge location. The system currently in place using local control of the operating mechanism works under a similar timeframe. At the Mt. Laurel remote operating station, the cameras and sensors will be used continuously during the bridge closure operations to monitor the waterway for the presence of vessels.

With the limit of 25 feet of vertical clearance in the open position, the movement of the bridge impacts vessels transiting the waterway. Signals alerting any vessels on Mantua Creek about this movement are being modified to reflect the operating process of a new vertical lift bridge. The bridge will use flashing red lights along with sounding the horn to notify waterway users that the bridge is changing position. The current regulation requires a flashing red light, one prolonged blast, one short blast, and an audio voice announcement to indicate the bridge is opening. The new regulation states that the light will change from fixed green to flashing red any time the bridge is not in the full open position. Prior to bridge movement, there will be two prolonged blasts followed by two short blasts. This rule removes the audio voice announcement.

The drawbridge operation schedule will not change under the Final Rule. However, Conrail will specify the dates when the bridge will be left in the open to navigation position from March 1 through November 30 and left in the closed to navigation position from December 1 through the last day of February. This represents a clarification of the existing regulatory language, and not a substantive change to the existing bridge schedule.

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 changes in this rule impact the methods used to operate the drawbridge. There are no changes to the drawbridge operating schedule.

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.

This action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. There are no changes proposed to the drawbridge operating schedule. Vessels that can safely transit under the bridge may do so at any time. The vertical clearance of 25 feet is consistent with other approved bridges on Mantua Creek.

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 would 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 have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

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

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

This rule 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 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:

The Virginia Department of Transportation, who owns and operates this swing bridge, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulation set out in 33 CFR 117.1025, to facilitate maintenance of the moveable spans on the structure.

Under the regular operating schedule, the Coleman Memorial Bridge, mile 7.0, between Gloucester Point and Yorktown, VA, opens on signal except from 5 a.m. to 8 a.m. and 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, shall remain closed to navigation. The Coleman Memorial Bridge has vertical clearances in the closed position of 60 feet above mean high water.

Under this temporary deviation, the drawbridge will be closed to navigation from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. each day on: Sunday May 3, 2015 with an inclement weather date on Sunday May 10, 2015; Sunday June 7, 2015 with an inclement weather date on Sunday June 14, 2015; And Sunday July 12, 2015 with an inclement weather date on Sunday July 19, 2015. The bridge will operate under normal operating schedule at all other times. Emergency openings cannot be provided. There are no alternate routes for vessels transiting this section of the York River. Vessels able to pass under the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime and are advised to proceed with caution. All other vessels may pass before 7 a.m. and after 5 p.m.

The York River is used by a variety of vessels including military, tugs, and recreational vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with these waterway users. The Coast Guard will also inform additional waterway users of the bridge closure periods through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners so that vessels can arrange their transits and minimize any impacts caused by the temporary deviation.

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

On September 23, 2014, we published an Interim Rule with request for comments entitled, “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Taylor Bayou Outfall Canal (Joint Outfall Canal), TX” in the Federal Register (79 FR 56651). We received 1 comment on the interim rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

The Premcor Refining Group, Inc.—A Valero Company owns the new Valero pontoon-supported swing bridge across Taylor Bayou Outfall Canal (JOC), mile 2.44, West Port Arthur, Jefferson County, Texas.

The bridge has unlimited vertical clearance in the open-to-navigation position and a vertical clearance of 11.11 feet in the closed-to-navigation position. The new bridge also has a horizontal clearance of 75.0 feet from fender to fender in the open-to-navigation position and 52 feet from pontoon to fender in the closed-to-navigation position. Traffic on this waterway is primarily recreational craft and commercial barges. Valero engaged the owners of these vessels through multiple discussions leading to the design and operating schedule of this bridge.

The owner requested to change the operating schedule, per 33 CFR 117.41(b), to allow the bridge to remain open except for two scheduled daily closures.

This change allows the bridge owner to leave the bridge in the open-to-navigation position, except for two daily maintenance cycles, while removing the requirement that a bridge tender be on the bridge at all times. All notifications and signals will remain as noted in the Interim Rule.

The Coast Guard provided a comment period of 45 days and only one comment was received. This comment was from Valero stating that they are in agreement with the rule as stated in the interim rule; however, they wish to have a little bit more flexibility due to contractor staff and general maintenance that require access to the other side of the property. After discussions with Valero, they agreed that any operation of the bridge outside of the prescribed times will require a tender on the bridge until the operations are finished and the normal open-to-navigation position can be resumed. Everything else will remain as published in the interim rule.

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.

This rule allows the bridge to remain in the open-to-navigation position at all times with the exception of two scheduled closures each day to allow for vehicular traffic. Because the bridge will be left in the open position and only closed to vessel traffic for two hours per day, one hour in the morning and one hour in the early evening, this regulation will have a minimal affect on the waterway users and vessels transiting the area. Additionally, the bridge can be opened in 30 minutes should there be emergency need during one of the scheduled closures. Through the course of the comment period of the interim rule, it was noted that if the bridge needs to be closed at any other time than those times that are scheduled, the bridge will be tended and be able to be opened in approximately 15 minutes.

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.

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the property owners, vessel operators and waterway users who wish to transit on Taylor Bayou Outfall Canal (JOC) past mile 2.44 from 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. and from 5:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. daily. This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons because, through pre-coordination and consultation with property owners, vessel operators and waterway users, this operating schedule will accommodate all waterway users with minimal impact.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a determination 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.

Bridges.

Accordingly, the interim rule amending 33 CFR part 117 which was published at 79 FR 56651 on September 23, 2014, is adopted as a final rule with the following change:

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety Zone for the Cincinnati Reds Season Fireworks listed in 33 CFR 165.801, Table No. 1, Line no. 2. These regulations can be found in the electronic version of the Code of Federal Regulations, under 33 CFR 165.801( ).

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.801, a vessel may not enter the safe zone, unless it receives permission from the COTP Ohio Valley or a designated representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or passage through the safety zone must request permission from the COTP Ohio Valley or designated representative. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP Ohio Valley or designated representative.

This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.801 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with extensive advance notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners (LNM) and Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM). If the COTP Ohio Valley determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in the notice, he or she may use a BNM to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

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

On March 2, 2015, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking entitled Safety Zone; Xterra Swim, Myrtle Beach, SC in the Federal Register (76 FR 246). We received no comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

(a) The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish regulated navigation areas and other limited access areas: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

(b) The purpose of the rule is to ensure the safety of the swimmers, participant vessels, spectators, and the general public during the Xterra Swim.

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 economic impact of this rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The safety zone will only be enforced for a total of 1 hour; (2) although persons and vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without authorization from the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; (3) persons and vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone if authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative; and (4) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the safety zone to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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

(1) This rule would affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Intracoastal Waterway in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina from 7:30 a.m. until 8:30 a.m. on May 3, 2015.

(2) For the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, 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 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 temporary safety zone on waters of the Intracoastal Waterway in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina during the Xterra Swim event on Sunday, May 3, 2015. Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph (34)(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

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

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones listed in 33 CFR 165.160 on the specified dates and times as indicated in Table 1 below. This regulation was published in the Federal Register on November 9, 2011 (76 FR 69614).

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.160, vessels may not enter the safety zones unless given permission from the COTP or a designated representative. Spectator vessels may transit outside the safety zones but may not anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the transit of other vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.160(a) and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this document in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide mariners with advanced notification of enforcement periods via the Local Notice to Mariners and marine information broadcasts. If the COTP determines that a safety zone need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this document, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to enter the safety zone.

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.

Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.

On October 24, 2013, EPA conditionally approved, pending submission by Rhode Island of a technical demonstration that Rhode Island's January 18, 2011 SIP revisions as they relate to major new and modified stationary sources of regulated NSR pollutants other than GHGs, are as least as stringent as EPA's NSR reform. See 78 FR 63383. On February 27, 2015, the State Rhode Island submitted a technical demonstration, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.166(a)(7), that Rhode Island's PSD and nonattainment new source review permitting programs are at least as stringent in all respects as EPA's NSR Reform provisions for stationary sources of regulated NSR pollutants other than GHGs.

Under section 110(k)(4) of the Clean Air Act, the EPA may conditionally approve a plan based on a commitment from the State to adopt specific enforceable measures by a date certain no later than one year from the date of final conditional approval. If the EPA subsequently determines that the State has met its commitment, EPA publishes a document in the Federal Register notifying the public that EPA is converting the conditional approval to a full approval. However, if the State fails to timely meet its commitment, then the conditional approval automatically converts to a disapproval by operation of law without further action required by EPA. If that were to occur, EPA would then notify the state by letter. At that time, the conditionally approved SIP revisions would not be part of the state's approved SIP. EPA subsequently would publish a notice in the Federal Register notifying the public that the conditional approval automatically converted to a disapproval.

The EPA conditionally approved Rhode Island's January 18, 2011 SIP revision as it relates to major new and modified stationary sources of regulated NSR pollutants other than GHGs on October 24, 2013. See 78 FR 63383. Our conditional approval was based on a commitment letter submitted by RI DEM on September 18, 2013. Specifically, RI DEM committed to submit a revised technical demonstration (described above) no later than one year from the date on which EPA finalized the conditional approval.

RI DEM failed to submit the technical demonstration in a timely manner, therefore our conditional approval, by operation of law, became a disapproval on December 23, 2014. However, on February 27, 2015, RI DEM submitted the technical demonstration pursuant to 40 CFR 51.166(a)(7), showing that Rhode Island's PSD and nonattainment new source review permitting programs are at least as stringent in all respects as EPA's NSR Reform provisions for stationary sources of regulated NSR pollutants other than GHGs. Rhode Island's technical demonstration is included in the docket and administrative record for this action.

EPA therefore has determined that RI DEM met the conditions of the conditional approval.

EPA is converting the conditional approval to a full approval with this action. Rhode Island's February 27, 2015 submission cured, as a legal matter, the disapproval that automatically occurred on December 23, 2014. Thus, the provisions of Rhode Island's SIP that EPA conditionally approved on October 24, 2013 are now fully approved into the State's SIP.

I. Background

On March 12, 2008, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.075 parts per million (ppm). See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). Under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is attained when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient air quality ozone concentrations is less than or equal to 0.075 ppm. 40 CFR 50.15. Ambient air quality monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet a data completeness requirement. The ambient air quality monitoring data completeness requirement is met when the average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than 90 percent, and no single year has less than 75 percent data completeness as determined in Appendix I of part 50.

Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requires EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that is violating the NAAQS based on the three most recent years of ambient air quality data at the conclusion of the designation process. The bi-state Charlotte Area was designated nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS on April 30, 2012 (effective July 20, 2012) using 2009-2011 ambient air quality data. See 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012). At the time of designation, the bi-state Charlotte Area was classified as a Marginal nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On February 13, 2015, EPA finalized a rule entitled “Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements” (SIP Requirements Rule) that establishes the requirements that state, tribal, and local air quality management agencies must meet as they develop implementation plans for areas where air quality exceeds the 2008 ozone NAAQS.1 See 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015). This rule establishes ozone nonattainment area attainment dates based on Table 1 of section 181(a) of the CAA, including an attainment date three years after the July 20, 2012, effective date for areas classified as marginal areas for the 2008 8-hour NAAQS. Therefore, the attainment date for the bi-state Charlotte Area is July 20, 2015.

Based on the nonattainment designation, North Carolina was required to develop a nonattainment SIP revision addressing certain CAA requirements. Specifically, pursuant to CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) and section 182(a)(1), North Carolina was required to submit a SIP revision addressing emissions statements and emissions inventory requirements, respectively.

Ground level ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but is created by chemical reactions between oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the presence of sunlight. Emissions from industrial facilities and electric utilities, motor vehicle exhaust, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents are some of the major sources of NOX and VOC. Section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA requires each state with ozone nonattainment areas to submit a SIP revision requiring annual emissions statements to be submitted to the state by the owner or operator of each NOX or VOC stationary source 2 located within a nonattainment area showing the actual emissions of NOX and VOC from that source. The first statement is due three years from the area's nonattainment designation, and subsequent statements are due at least annually thereafter. Section 182(a)(1) of the CAA requires states with areas designated nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS to submit a SIP revision providing a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in such area.

On July 7, 2014, North Carolina submitted a SIP revision containing a base year emissions inventory and addressing emissions statement requirements related to its portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. EPA is now taking action to approve this SIP revision as meeting the requirements of sections 110, 182(a)(1), and 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA. More information on EPA's analysis of North Carolina's SIP revision is provided below.

As discussed above, section 182(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in each ozone non-attainment area. The section 182(a)(1) base year inventory is defined in the SIP Requirements Rule as “a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from sources of VOC and NOX emitted within the boundaries of the nonattainment area as required by CAA section 182(a)(1).” See 40 CFR 51.1100(bb). The inventory year must be selected consistent with the baseline year for the RFP plan as required by 40 CFR 51.1110(b),3 and the inventory must include actual ozone season day emissions as defined in 40 CFR 51.1100(cc) 4 and contain data elements consistent with the detail required by 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. See 40 CFR 51.1115(a), (c), (e). In addition, the point source emissions included in the inventory must be reported according to the point source emissions thresholds of the Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR) in 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. See 40 CFR 51.1115(d).

North Carolina selected 2011 as the base year for the section 182(a)(1) emissions inventory which is the year corresponding with the first triennial inventory under 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. This base year is one of the three years of ambient data used to designate the Area as a nonattainment area and therefore represents emissions associated with nonattainment conditions. The emissions inventory is based on data developed and submitted by NC DENR and Mecklenburg County Air Quality to EPA's 2011 National Emissions Inventory (NEI), and it contains data elements consistent with the detail required by 40 CFR part 51, subpart A.5

North Carolina's emissions inventory for its portion of the Area provides 2011 typical average summer day emissions data for NOX and VOCs for the following general source categories: stationary point, area, non-road mobile, and on-road mobile. A detailed discussion of the inventory development is located in Appendix B to North Carolina's submittal which is provided in the docket for this action. The table below provides a summary of the emissions inventory.

The emissions reported for Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, Rowan, and Union Counties reflect the emissions for only the nonattainment portion of the counties. The inventory contains point source emissions data for facilities located within the North Carolina portion of the Area based on Geographic Information Systems mapping. For the remaining emissions categories, emissions for the North Carolina portion of the Area were determined based on the population of the nonattainment townships within each partial county. For Mecklenburg County, the emissions for the entire county are provided. More detail on the inventory emissions for individual sources categories is provided below and in Appendix B to North Carolina's SIP submittal.

Point sources are large, stationary, identifiable sources of emissions that release pollutants into the atmosphere. The point source emissions inventory for North Carolina's portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area was developed using facility-specific emissions data. The point source emissions inventory for North Carolina's portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area data is located in the docket for today's action. The point source emissions data meets the point source emissions thresholds of 40 CFR part 51, subpart A.

Area sources are small emission stationary sources which, due to their large number, collectively have significant emissions (e.g., dry cleaners, service stations). Emissions for these sources were estimated by multiplying an emission factor by such indicators of collective emissions activity as production, number of employees, or population. These emissions were estimated at the county level. North Carolina developed its inventory according to the current EPA emissions inventory guidance for area sources.6

On-road mobile sources include vehicles used on roads for transportation of passengers or freight. North Carolina's developed its on-road emissions inventory using EPA's Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) model for each ozone nonattainment county.7 County level on-road modeling was conducted using county-specific vehicle population and other local data. North Carolina developed its inventory according to the current EPA emissions inventory guidance for on-road mobile sources.8

Non-road mobile sources include vehicles, engines, and equipment used for construction, agriculture, recreation, and other purposes that do not use roadways (e.g., lawn mowers, construction equipment, railroad locomotives, and aircraft). North Carolina calculated emissions for most of the non-road mobile sources using EPA's NONROAD2008a model 9 and developed its non-road mobile source inventory according to the current EPA emissions inventory guidance for non-road mobile sources.10

For the reasons discussed above, EPA has determined that North Carolina's emissions inventory meets the requirements under CAA section 182(a)(1) and the SIP Requirements Rule for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

Pursuant to section 182(a)(3)(B), states with ozone nonattainment areas must require annual emissions statements from NOX and VOC stationary sources within those nonattainment areas. This requirement applies to all ozone nonattainment areas regardless of classification (e.g., Marginal, Moderate).

North Carolina regulation 15A North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) 02Q.0207 requires all owners or operators of stationary sources with actual emissions of 25 tons per year or more of VOC or NOX located in the counties listed therein to submit a statement to the State by June 30 of each year identifying actual NOX and VOC emissions for the previous calendar year. In 1995, EPA approved North Carolina's regulation and incorporated it into the SIP. See 60 FR 22283 (May 5, 1995). At that time, the regulation applied to stationary sources within Davidson County, Durham County, Forsyth County, Gaston County, Guilford County, Mecklenburg County, Wake County, the Dutchville Township portion of Granville County, and that part of Davie County bounded by the Yadkin River, Dutchman's Creek, North Carolina Highway 801, Fulton Creek, and back to the Yadkin River. North Carolina subsequently amended the regulation to expand its coverage to include Cabarrus, Lincoln, Rowan, and Union Counties in their entireties and Davidson Township and Coddle Creek Township in Iredell County. EPA concluded that the amended regulation met the requirements of section 182(a)(3)(B) for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and incorporated the amendments into the SIP in 2012. See 77 FR 24382 (April 24, 2012). In its July 7, 2014 SIP revision, North Carolina noted that it continues to operate under 15A NCAC 02Q.0207 as approved into the SIP in 2012. EPA has reviewed this SIP-approved regulation and determined that it covers the entire North Carolina portion of the Area and meets the requirements of section 182(a)(3)(B) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.11

EPA is approving the SIP revision submitted by North Carolina on July 7, 2014, addressing the base year emissions inventory and emissions statement requirements for the State's portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. EPA has concluded that the State's submission meets the requirements of sections 110 and 182 of the CAA. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective June 22, 2015 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by May 21, 2015.

If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All adverse comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on June 22, 2015 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, the Agency may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

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 as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 22, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

I. Background

On September 5, 2014, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, through the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), formally submitted a request to redesignate the Pennsylvania portion of the Philadelphia Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Concurrently, PADEP submitted a maintenance plan for the Pennsylvania portion of the Area as a SIP revision to ensure continued attainment throughout the Pennsylvania portion of the Area over the next 10 years. The maintenance plan includes the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for the Pennsylvania portion of the Area for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, which EPA is approving for transportation conformity purposes. PADEP also submitted a 2007 comprehensive emissions inventory that was included in the maintenance plan for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for NOX, sulfur dioxide (SO2), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and ammonia (NH3).

On February 17, 2015 (80 FR 8254), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for Pennsylvania. In the NPR, EPA proposed approval of Pennsylvania's September 5, 2014 request to redesignate the Pennsylvania portion of the Philadelphia Area to attainment for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA also proposed approval of the associated maintenance plan as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, which includes the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for both NAAQS, which EPA proposed to approve for purposes of transportation conformity. In addition, EPA proposed approval of the 2007 emissions inventory included in the maintenance plan for the Pennsylvania portion of the Area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS to meet the emissions inventory requirement of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA.

The details of Pennsylvania's submittal and the rationale for EPA's proposed actions are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No adverse public comments were received on the NPR.

EPA is taking final actions on the redesignation request and SIP revisions submitted on September 5, 2014 by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the Pennsylvania portion of the Philadelphia Area for the1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. First, EPA finds that the monitoring data demonstrates that the Area has attained the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and continues to attain both NAAQS. Second, EPA is approving Pennsylvania's redesignation request for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, because EPA has determined that the request meets the redesignation criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA for both NAAQS. Approval of this redesignation request will change the official designation of the Pennsylvania portion of the Philadelphia Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Third, EPA is approving the associated maintenance plan for the Pennsylvania portion of the Philadelphia Area as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS because it meets the requirements of section 175A of the CAA. The maintenance plan includes the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs submitted by Pennsylvania for the Pennsylvania portion of the Philadelphia Area for transportation conformity purposes. In addition, EPA is approving the 2007 emissions inventory for the Pennsylvania portion of the Area as meeting the requirement of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), EPA finds there is good cause for this rulemaking action to become effective immediately upon publication. A delayed effective date is unnecessary due to the nature of a redesignation to attainment, which eliminates CAA obligations that would otherwise apply. The immediate effective date for this rulemaking action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that rulemaking actions may become effective less than 30 days after publication if the rule “grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction,” and section 553(d)(3), which allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in section 553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. Today's rulemaking action, however, does not create any new regulatory requirements such that affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule takes effect. Rather, today's rulemaking action relieves the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania of the obligation to comply with nonattainment-related planning requirements for the Pennsylvania portion of the Philadelphia Area pursuant to part D of the CAA and approves certain emissions inventories and MVEBs for the Pennsylvania portion of the Area. For these reasons, EPA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for this rulemaking action to become effective on the date of publication.

Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the accompanying approval of the maintenance plan under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those required by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of itself impose any new requirements, but rather results in the application of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, 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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 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 22, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action, approving the redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Pennsylvania portion of the Philadelphia Area for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and the comprehensive emissions inventory for the Pennsylvania portion of the Philadelphia Area for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

On February 24, 2015, EPA published a direct final rule approving the updated delegation of EPA authority for implementation and enforcement of NESHAPs for all sources (both part 70 and non-part 70 sources) to the ODEQ. The direct final rule was published without prior proposal because EPA anticipated no adverse comments. EPA stated in the direct final rule that if relevant, adverse comments were received by March 26, 2015, EPA would publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register. EPA received a comment on March 25, 2015, from the ODEQ stating in relevant part, that EPA reconsider the limitation on ODEQ's authority over NESHAPs and remove the language in the final rule requiring ODEQ to make a demonstration of jurisdiction over non-reservation Indian country. ODEQ cited various wording from two court cases where both generally stated that a state has regulatory jurisdiction under the CAA over all the land within its territory and outside the boundaries of an Indian reservation, and that regulatory jurisdiction under the CAA must lie initially with either a tribe or a state. EPA considers this a relevant, adverse comment and accordingly is withdrawing the direct final rule. In a separate subsequent final rulemaking EPA will address the comment received. The withdrawal is being taken pursuant to section 112 of the CAA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

Viewing Documents

The policy letter discussed below is available and can be viewed by going to http://www.uscg.mil/nmc and clicking on “Regulations & Policy,” then click on “Policy Letters.”

Liftboats spend significant periods elevated at work sites and are not underway at those times. The time a liftboat spends underway is generally limited to travelling to and from a job site, and may be a relatively small portion of the total time the liftboat is in operation. Because of these specialized operations, the Coast Guard considers liftboats to be unique vessels and has evaluated sea service on liftboats to determine its equivalency to traditional service.

This policy letter describes policy for the Coast Guards' evaluation of service obtained on liftboats used to qualify for national officer endorsements to an MMC.

This notice of availability is issued under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).

Background

The Council adopted Framework 26 on November 20, 2014, and submitted it to NMFS on February 17, 2015, for review and approval. Framework 26 specifies measures for fishing year 2015, but includes fishing year 2016 measures that will go into place as a default, should the next specifications-setting framework be delayed beyond the start of fishing year 2016. Fishing year 2015 default allocations have been in place since March 1, 2015, and allow for only 17 DAS and zero access area trips. The default measures are replaced by the higher Framework 26 allocations described below. Details concerning the development of these measures were contained in the preamble of the proposed rule and are not repeated here.

The allocations incorporate new biomass reference points that resulted from the Northeast Fisheries Science Center's most recent scallop stock benchmark assessment that was completed in July 2014. The assessment reviewed and updated the data and models used to assess the scallop stock and ultimately updated the reference points for status determinations. A comparison of the old and new reference points is outlined in Table 1.

Due to these reference point updates, we are updating the fishing mortality rates that the Council uses to set OFL, ABC, and ACL through this action. The Council set OFL based on an F of 0.48, equivalent to the F threshold updated through the 2014 assessment. The Council set ABC and the equivalent total ACL for each fishing year using an F of 0.38, which is the F associated with a 25-percent probability of exceeding the OFL. The Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee recommended scallop fishery ABCs for the 2015 and 2016 fishing years of 55.9 million lb (25,352 mt) and 70.1 million lb (31,807 mt), respectively, after accounting for discards and incidental mortality. The Scientific and Statistical Committee will reevaluate an ABC for 2016 when the Council develops the next framework adjustment. Table 2 outlines the scallop fishery catch limits derived from the ABC values.

This action deducts 567 mt of scallops annually for 2015 and 2016 from the ABC and sets it aside as the Scallop research set-aside (RSA) to fund scallop research and to compensate participating vessels through the sale of scallops harvested under RSA projects. Framework 26 allows RSA to be harvested from the Mid-Atlantic Access Area that is opened for 2015, once this action is approved and implemented, but would prevent RSA harvesting from access areas under 2016 default measures. Of this 1.25 M lb (567 mt) allocation, NMFS has already allocated 397,470 lb (180.3 mt) to previously funded multi-year projects as part of the 2014 RSA awards process. NMFS reviewed proposals submitted for consideration of 2015 RSA awards and will be selecting projects for funding in the near future.

This action also sets aside 1 percent of the ABC for the industry-funded observer program to help defray the cost to scallop vessels that carry an observer. The observer set-asides for fishing years 2015 and 2016 are 254 mt and 318 mt, respectively. In fishing year 2015, the compensation rates for limited access vessels in open areas fishing under days-at-sea (DAS) is 0.08 DAS per DAS fished, and for access area trips the compensation rate is 150 lb, in addition to the vessel's possession limit for the trip for each day or part of a day an observer is onboard. LAGC IFQ vessels may possess an additional 150 lb per trip in open areas when carrying an observer. NMFS may adjust the compensation rate throughout the fishing year, depending on how quickly the fleets are using the set aside. The 2016 observer set-aside may be adjusted by the Council when it develops specific, non-default measures for 2016.

This action implements vessel-specific DAS allocations for each of the three limited access scallop DAS permit categories (i.e., full-time, part-time, and occasional) for 2015 and 2016 (Table 3). Fishing year 2015 DAS allocations are almost identical to those allocated to the limited access fleet in 2014 (31 DAS for full-time, 12 DAS for part-time, and 3 DAS for occasional vessels). Fishing year 2016 DAS allocations are precautionary, and are set at 75 percent of what current biomass projections indicate could be allocated to each limited access scallop vessel for the entire fishing year. This is to avoid over-allocating DAS to the fleet in the event that the framework that would set those allocations is delayed past the start of the 2016 fishing year. The allocations in Table 3 exclude any DAS deductions that are required if the limited access scallop fleet exceeded its 2014 sub-ACL. The DAS values in Table 3 take into account a slight DAS reduction (0.14 DAS) to account for vessels steaming to southern ports while not accruing DAS (See Adjustment to Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) Declaration Procedures for Some Open Area Trips). In addition, the Council requested that DAS allocations now be specified to the hundredth decimal place, rather than rounding up or down to whole DAS. This is consistent with DAS accounting as vessels use DAS throughout the year. Table 3 also includes 2015 Default DAS that are replaced by the 2015 DAS.

For fishing year 2015 and the start of 2016, Framework 26 closes all three Georges Bank Access Areas (i.e., Nantucket Lightship (NLS), Closed Area 1, and Closed Area 2 Access Areas) and opens all three Mid-Atlantic Access Areas (i.e., Elephant Trunk, Delmarva, and Hudson Canyon Access Areas combined). This action extends the boundaries of the NLS Access Area that will be closed to the scallop fleet to include a concentration of small scallops near the existing boundary along the southeast corner, currently considered part of the open area. Opening this NLS extended closure area, which increases the NLS Access Area boundary by 158 square miles (409 square km), will be reconsidered in a future framework action when the scallops are larger and ready for harvest.

This action opens all three Mid-Atlantic access areas to both the limited access and LAGC IFQ fleet, and treats the three areas as one single area. This is named the Mid-Atlantic Access Area under this action. Scallop vessels are able to fish across all three areas in a single access area trip, except in one area within the Mid-Atlantic Access Area that is closed to scallop fishing. This area is seven 10-minute squares (i.e., 548 square nautical miles, 1419 square km) in the northwest corner of the Elephant Trunk Access Area, and is closed to protect small scallops. This area constitutes roughly 35 percent of the current Elephant Trunk Access Area. The closure allows for the small concentrations of scallops in this portion of the access area to be protected as they grow to a more harvestable size. This action prohibits transiting across this small area due to its small size and because the incentive to fish in the area is relatively high due to the high abundance of scallops.

Table 4 outlines the limited access allocations that can be fished from the Mid-Atlantic Access Area. Vessels can take this allocation in as many trips as needed, so long as vessels do not exceed the trip possession limits (also in Table 4). These access area allocations for 2015 represent a 112-percent increase in access area allocations compared to 2014.

This action also modifies access area trip reporting procedures by requiring that each limited access vessel submit a pre-landing notification form through its VMS unit prior to returning to port at the end of each access area trip, including trips where no scallops are landed. These pre-landing notifications replace the current broken trip and compensation trip procedures. Vessels are no longer required to submit a broken trip notification form if they are unable to land their full possession limits on an access area trip. Vessels also no longer need to apply to NMFS to receive, or wait for NMFS to issue, a compensation trip to fish their remaining access area scallop allocation.

For example, under Framework 26 access area allocations, a full-time vessel receives 51,000 lb (23,133 kg) in the Mid-Atlantic Access Area. That allocation can be landed on as many or as few trips as needed, so long as the 17,000-lb (7,711-kg) possession limit is not exceeded on any one trip. The vessel may choose to fish its full allocation over the course of three trips, landing the maximum allowance of 17,000 lb (7,711 kg) on each trip, or it can choose to fish its full allocation over the course of two, three, or more trips, landing less than the trip possession limit on each trip. Regardless, the vessel must submit a pre-landing notification form prior to returning to port for each access area trip, but does not have to wait for NMFS to issue a compensation trip prior to starting its next access area trip.

Under this action, each vessel automatically carries over unharvested access area allocation that the vessel can fish in the first 60 days of the subsequent fishing year, as long as the access area is open for scallop fishing during that time. This change results in little change to the amount of carryover NMFS expects from year to year because most vessels with unharvested access area pounds took advantage of the broken trip provisions. Also, Framework 26 accounts for the uncertainty associated with carryover by setting the limited access fishery's ACT lower than the fishery's ACL. The ACT is meant to prevent carryover from causing the fleet to exceed an ACL.

Although vessel owners are ultimately responsible for tracking their own scallop access area landings and ensuring they do not exceed their annual allocations, NMFS will match dealer-reported scallop landing records with access area trip declarations and make that information available on the web-based allocation monitoring tool, Fish-On-Line, which each vessel owner can access and review.

This action enables a vessel to declare out of a DAS trip at or south of Cape May, NJ (specifically, at or south of 39° N. lat.), once it goes inside the VMS demarcation line, and then, with scallops on board, steam seaward of the VMS demarcation line to ports south of Cape May, NJ, without being charged DAS. This measure does not apply to vessels that intend to land scallops in ports north of Cape May, NJ. Once this change in declaration to “declare out of fishery” has been made, vessels are required to submit a scallop pre-landing notification form through VMS, return directly to port and offload scallops immediately, and stow all gear. In addition, such vessels are prohibited from having on board any in-shell scallops. The purpose of the is measure is to provide an incentive for vessels to land scallops in the fishery's southern-most ports by reducing some of the steaming time to return from more distant and heavily fished fishing grounds.

Because this change in when some vessels may “clock out” of their DAS could impact overall DAS allocations to the fleet, this action also reduces the overall DAS allocated to each limited access scallop vessel. The DAS adjustment (which has already been calculated into the DAS allocations proposed in Table 3) is a decrease of 0.14 DAS for full-time vessels and 0.06 DAS for part-time vessels. This measure, including the appropriate DAS deductions, was supported by the Council's Advisory Panel.

1. Crew Limit Restrictions in Access Areas. This action implements crew limits for all access areas. In an effort to protect small scallops and discourage vessels from high-grading (discarding smaller scallops in exchange for larger ones), Framework 26 imposes a crew limit of eight individuals per limited access vessel, including the captain, when fishing in any scallop access area. If a vessel is participating in the small dredge program, it may not have more than six people on board, including the captain, on an access area trip. These crew limits may be reevaluated in a future framework action.

2. Delayed Harvesting of Default 2016 Mid-Atlantic Access Area Allocations. Although the Framework includes precautionary access area allocations for the 2016 fishing year (see 2016 allocations in Table 4), vessels have to wait to fish these allocations until April 1, 2016. This precautionary measure is designed to protect scallops when scallop meat weights are lower than other times of the year (generally, this change in meat-weight is a physiological change in scallops due to spawning). However, if a vessel has not fully harvested its 2015 scallop access area allocation in fishing year 2015, it may still fish the remainder of its allocation in the first 60 days of 2016 (i.e., March 1, 2016, through April 29, 2016).

3. 2016 RSA Harvest Restrictions. This action prohibits vessels participating in RSA projects from harvesting RSA in the Mid-Atlantic Access Area under default 2016 measures. At the start of 2016, RSA can only be harvested from open areas. This will be re-evaluated for the remainder of 2016 in the framework action that would set final 2016 specifications.

1. Sub-ACL for LAGC vessels with IFQ permits. For LAGC vessels with IFQ permits, this action implements a 1,225-mt ACL for 2015 and an initial ACL of 1,545 mt for 2016 (Table 2). We calculate IFQ allocations by applying each vessel's IFQ contribution percentage to these ACLs. These allocations assume that no LAGC IFQ AMs are triggered. If a vessel exceeds its IFQ in a given fishing year, its IFQ for the subsequent fishing year would be reduced by the amount of the overage.

Because Framework 26 is being implemented after the March 1 start of fishing year 2015, the default 2015 IFQ allocations went into place automatically on March 1, 2015. This action increases the current vessel IFQ allocations. NMFS sent a letter to IFQ permit holders providing both March 1, 2015, IFQ allocations and Framework 26 IFQ allocations so that vessel owners know what mid-year adjustments will occur now that Framework 26 is approved.

2. Sub-ACL for Limited Access Scallop Vessels with IFQ Permits. For limited access scallop vessels with IFQ permits, this action implements a 123-mt ACL for 2015, and an initial 154-mt ACL for 2016 (Table 2). We calculate IFQ allocations by applying each vessel's IFQ contribution percentage to these ACLs. These allocations assume that no LAGC IFQ accountability measures (AMs) are triggered. If a vessel exceeds its IFQ in a given fishing year, its IFQ for the subsequent fishing year will be reduced by the amount of the overage.

3. LAGC IFQ Trip Allocations and Possession Limits for Scallop Access Areas. Framework 26 allocates the LAGC IFQ vessels a fleetwide number of trips that can be taken in the Mid-Atlantic Access Area. Framework 26 allocates 2,065 and 602 trips in 2015 and 2016, respectively, to this area. Under default 2016 measures, LAGC IFQ vessels must wait to fish these trips until April 1, 2016.

These trip allocations are equivalent to the overall proportion of total catch from access areas compared to total catch. For example, the total projected catch for the scallop fishery in 2015 is 20,865 mt, and 8,700 mt are projected to come from access areas, roughly 41.7 percent. If the same proportion is applied to total LAGC IFQ catch, the total allocation to LAGC IFQ vessels from access areas would be about 600 mt, roughly 44.5 percent of the total LAGC IFQ sub-ACL for 2015 (1,348 mt).

4. Northern Gulf of Maine (NGOM) TAC. This action allocates a 70,000-lb (31,751-kg) annual NGOM TAC for fishing years 2015 and 2016. The allocation for 2015 assumes that there are no overages in 2014, which would trigger a pound-for-pound deduction in 2015 to account for the overage.

5. Scallop Incidental Catch Target TAC. This action allocates a 50,000-lb (22,680-kg) scallop incidental catch target TAC for fishing years 2015 and 2016 to account for mortality from this component of the fishery, and to ensure that F targets are not exceeded. The Council and NMFS may adjust this target TAC in a future action if vessels catch more scallops under the incidental target TAC than predicted.

This action adjusts season regulations for the sea turtle deflector dredge (TDD) and area regulations for the sea turtle chain mat to make them consistent by moving the chain mat requirement line to 71° W. long. and changing the end of the TDD season from October to November. By making the area and season for these two gear modifications consistent, west of 71° W. long. from May through November, the conservation benefit of the current chain mat and TDD requirements is maintained, while reducing the regulatory complexity of differing seasons and areas. Any reduction in the size of the area in which chain mats would be required is balanced by an extension of the season that TDDs would be required.

This action also makes a very slight modification to the TDD gear regulations for safety purposes. Current TDD gear regulations allow for a flaring bar to ensure safe handling of the dredge. Prior to this action, this flaring bar could only be attached to the dredge frame on one side. This action adjusts this regulation to allow for a bar or “u”-shaped flaring mechanism to support safety at sea. Allowing a u-shaped flaring mechanism should not have an impact on sea turtles and the effectiveness of the TDD because the flaring bar or mechanism would still be prohibited from being attached within 12 inches (30.5 cm) of the “bump out” of the TDD and not between the bale bars. This change requires that each side of the bar or mechanism be no more than 12 inches (30.5 cm) in length.

This action does not change any other regulatory requirements for the use of chain mats and TDDs.

Framework 26 modifies the State Water Exemption Program to include a new exemption that enables scallop vessels to continue to fish in state waters after the NGOM hard TAC is reached. This action expands the exemptions to include this new measure related to the NGOM. Specifically, states within the NGOM management area (i.e., Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine) can request an exemption from the regulation that requires that scallop vessels must stop fishing in the state waters portion of the NGOM once the Federal TAC has been reached. States have to apply for this exemption and specify to which vessels this would apply (e.g., vessels with NGOM permits, IFQ permits, incidental permits, or limited access permits).

This measure alleviates the concerns of Maine permit holders about their ability to fish in state waters when the state season is open in the winter if the NGOM TAC is reached by giving the state the ability to apply for an exemption through the State Water Exemption Program. Because the NGOM Federal TAC is set based only on the Federal portion of the resource, NMFS does not expect this measure to compromise the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan's (FMP's) limits on catch and mortality.

Prior to Framework 26, all scallop vessels (i.e., limited access and LAGC) fishing for scallops with dredges in open areas west of 71° W. long. were required to have their dredges configured so that no dredge has more than seven rows of rings in the apron (i.e., the area between the terminus of the dredge (clubstick) and the twine top) on the topside of the dredge. The twine top helps finfish (flatfish in particular) escape from the dredge during fishing and the maximum number of rows of rings prevents fishermen from making the twine top small and ineffective in reducing bycatch. Framework 26 extends this proactive accountability measure to all areas where scallop fishing occurs (i.e., all access and open areas). This increased spatial coverage may further reduce flatfish bycatch by preventing dredge configurations using more than seven rows of rings. This is considered to be a proactive AM because it may help the fishery stay below the sub-ACLs for flatfish (yellowtail flounder and windowpane flounder, currently). Additionally, this measure enables vessels to voluntarily fish with an even shorter apron (less than seven rings), to proactively reduce flatfish bycatch in any area or season.

This rule includes several revisions to the regulatory text to address text that is unnecessary, outdated, unclear, or otherwise could be improved. NMFS changes these consistent with section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), which provides that the Secretary of Commerce may promulgate regulations necessary to ensure that amendments to an FMP are carried out in accordance with the FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Two revisions clarify how to apply and measure gear modifications to ensure compliance. The first revision at § 648.51 clarifies where to measure meshes to ensure twine top compliance. The second revision at § 648.53 clarifies an example on how the hanging ratio should be applied and measured if the windowpane reactive AM implemented through Framework 25 (June 26, 2014; 79 FR 34251) is triggered.

This action also modifies the VMS catch report requirements at § 648.10(f)(4)(i) to only include the information used by NMFS to monitor flatfish bycatch. The form currently requires that the amount of yellowtail flounder discards be reported daily. This requirement has been in place since Amendment 15 to the Scallop FMP (76 FR 43746; July 21, 2011), which established the yellowtail flounder AMs in the FMP. However, since the implementation of Amendment 15, the scallop fishery now has other bycatch sub-ACLs and AMs (e.g., SNE/MA windowpane flounder) which are not captured in this form. In addition, current bycatch monitoring relies solely on observer reports to determine bycatch discards for these species. In order to minimize confusion, and because this information is not necessary for bycatch monitoring, we will remove the reference to reporting yellowtail discards. Instead, the vessels will report daily scallop catch and the amount of all other species kept.

In addition, this action adjusts the regulations at § 648.53(a) to clarify that the values for ABC/ACL stated in the regulations reflect the levels from which ACTs are set, thus they do not include estimates of discards and incidental mortality. This regulatory clarification is at the request of the Council and more accurately reflects the process for establishing ABCs and ACLs in the scallop fishery.

NMFS received six comment letters in response to the proposed rule from: Fisheries Survival Fund, a scallop fishing industry organization; the Maine Department of Marine Resources; and four individuals. We provide responses below to the issues these commenters raised. NMFS may only approve, disapprove, or partially approve measures in Framework 26, and cannot substantively amend, add, or delete measures beyond what is necessary under section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to discharge its responsibility to carry out such measures.

Comment 1: Fisheries Survival Fund, which represents a majority of the limited access scallop fleet, was supportive of this action, but asked that we waive the delay of effectiveness period for the measures related to access area allocations and DAS. It asked that we retain the 30-day delay of effectiveness period for other measures that may require some time for the industry to make the necessary changes, e.g., gear modifications.

Response: NMFS agrees with the timing suggestions and will be implementing all measures upon publication of this final rule, with the exception of the maximum seven-row apron requirement. This measure will have a 30-day delay in effectiveness.

Comment 2: One commenter was concerned that, because the Georges Bank Access Areas are closing and the Mid-Atlantic Access Area is opening in May, there may be a gear conflict with 15-20 monkfish gillnetters in the Delmarva Access Area. The commenter was concerned that the scallop vessels would dredge through their gear because April through June is the height of the monkfish fishing season.

Response: The scallop fishery operates year round. The delayed opening of Delmarva in fishing year 2014 (mid-June instead of March 1) was a result of a delay in the Council's submission of Framework Adjustment 26 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP due to additional alternatives that were added late in the process. This action was intended to be in place before May. In the past, when we had 2-year specifications, the Delmarva area was opened on March 1. Also, the Delmarva area is currently opened to scallop fishing from 2014 carryover trips and will be through April. The commenter did not ask us to delay access to this area to give the monkfish fleet time to make the necessary adjustments, but they asked that we not allow scallopers in the area until they were done fishing. We cannot delay access area trips to prevent gear conflict because the Council did not address this issue in Framework 26. Section 305(1)(K) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act prohibits the negligent removal or damaging of fishing gear owned by another person, which is located in the exclusive economic zone, or the fish contained in such fishing gear. We will remind the scallop fleet of this prohibition in a bulletin announcing the implementation of Framework 26.

Comment 3: The Maine Department of Marine Resources commented in support of the rule, in particular, the proposed modifications to the State Water Exemption Program.

Response: NMFS appreciates the comment.

Comment 4: One commenter stated that fishing year 2015 scallop quotas should be reduced by 25 percent to account for poaching.

Response: There is no evidence in the record to support neither this assertion nor the need to reduce scallop quotas by 25 percent to address poaching. As we discuss in the preambles to both the proposed and final rules, the quota allocations for fishing years 2015 and 2016 are based on the best scientific information available and are consistent with the control rules outlined in the ACL process established under Amendment 15 to the FMP. We do not currently consider scallops overfished or subject to overfishing. Sufficient analysis and scientific justification for our action in this final rule are contained within the supporting documents.

Comment 5: One commenter stated that anyone who kills a turtle should be fined $1 million.

Response: As discussed in the preamble, the measures in this action to address turtle interactions were determined to be conservation neutral by balancing the smaller area for the turtle chain mat requirement with the additional months for the Turtle Deflector Dredge. Addressing any fines for the incidental take of turtles is not within the scope or authority for this type of action.

Comment 6: One commenter requested that we increase the 40-lb possession limit for vessels with incidental LAGC permits.

Response: Framework 26 did not include or analyze any alternatives regarding changes to possession limits for LAGC incidental permits. NMFS can only approve or disapprove this framework and cannot in this action add additional substantive measures not contained in the framework. The Council would have to consider this change in a subsequent action.

Comment 7: One commenter simply stated that he opposed this action because he loves and needs scallops.

Response: Framework 26 creates two closure areas to protect small scallops in the Elephant Trunk and Nantucket Lightship Access Areas, and NMFS has managed scallop fishing through area-based management since 1999. By protecting small scallops through area-based management, NMFS and the Council hope to support long term optimum yield. Under this management, NMFS and the Council intend to support this fishery that fills a demand for scallops that the U.S. and world love.

We corrected a typographical error that referenced section § 648.65, and we included changes to the regulatory text to §§ 648.58, 648.59, and 648.61 clarify the description of the regulated areas defined under the Scallop FMP.

Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the ESA, and other applicable law.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this rule is not significant according to Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.

This final rule does not contain policies with federalism or “takings” implications, as those terms are defined in E.O. 1312 and E.O. 12630, respectively.

This action contains collection-of-information requirements subject the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The two requirements were approved by OMB under the NMFS Greater Atlantic Region Scallop Report Family of Forms (OMB Control No. 0648-0491). Under Framework 26, all 347 limited access vessels are required to submit a pre-landing notification form for each access area trip through their VMS units. This information collection is intended to improve access area trip monitoring, as well as streamline a vessel's ability to fish multiple access area trips. Although this is a new requirement, it replaces other reporting procedures currently required for breaking an access area trip and receiving permission to take a compensation trip to harvest remaining unharvested scallop pounds from an access area trip. The action also includes a new requirement for some limited access vessels to report a pre-landing notification form through their VMS unit before changing their open area trip declaration to a “declared out of fishery declaration,” which is expected to add a burden to a very small portion of the fleet. Public reporting burden for submitting these pre-landing notification forms is estimated to average 5 minutes per response with an associated cost of $1.25, which includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. This requirement applies to a few vessels that intend to land open area scallops at ports south of Cape May, NJ, and want to steam to those ports while not using DAS. This new pre-landing requirement is necessary to enforce a measure intended to assist shoreside businesses in southern ports by providing an incentive for vessels to steam to ports far away from popular open area fishing grounds.

In a given fishing year, NMFS estimates that for access area reporting, each of the 313 full-time limited access vessels will submit a pre-landing report 5 times (1,565 responses), and each of the 34 part-time limited access vessel will submit a pre-landing report up to 3 times (102 responses), for a total of 1,667 responses. These 1,667 responses impose total compliance costs of $2,084 on the whole fishery, but this cost is offset by the reduction in burden from the replaced trip termination and compensation trip reporting procedures, which were estimated to cost a total of $300 annually. Thus, the additional burden for this new pre-landing requirement is $1,785 ($2,085−$300), or $5.14 per vessel. This is likely an overestimate, but accounts for the potential of higher access area scallop allocations in future fishing years.

For the new DAS pre-landing requirements, NMFS estimates that this will likely impact 30 vessels and result in each of those vessels reporting one time a year. Public reporting burden for submitting these pre-landing notification forms is also estimated to average 5 minutes per response with an associated cost of $1.25. Therefore, the total cost of this will impose total compliance costs of $38 (30 vessels × $1.25). The total additional burden for all vessels from both of these new pre-landing requirements is $1,823.

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries has determined that the need to implement these measures in an expedited manner in order to help achieve conservation objectives for the scallop fishery and certain fish stocks constitutes good cause, under authority contained in 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness and to make the majority of Framework 26 final measures effective May 1, 2015, or upon publication in the Federal Register if published after May 1, 2015. The only exception to this waiver is the proactive accountability measure for bycatch requiring a maximum of seven rows of rings in the topside of the apron found in § 648.51(b)(4)(iv). This measure is effective 30 days after the publication date, in order to give vessels the opportunity to modify their gear to comply with regulations.

If there is a 30-day delay in implementing the measures in Framework 26, the scallop fleet will continue under the current default access area, DAS, IFQ, RSA, and observer set-aside allocations. These default allocations were purposely set to be more conservative than what would eventually be implemented under Framework 26. Under default measures, each full-time vessel has 17 DAS and no access area allocation. If the rule is not in place May 1, many scallopers will not be able to fish because they have already used a significant portion of their default DAS. This action gives them another 13.86 DAS. More importantly, the entire fleet will not be allowed in the Access Area. Each full time vessel will receive an additional 51,000 to be harvested in the Mid-Atlantic Access Area with this action. This action, therefore, relieves restrictions on the scallop fleet by providing full-time vessels with an additional 13.86 DAS (30.86 DAS total) and 51,000 lb in access area allocation. Further, the catch rates, meat weights, and meat quality in Mid-Atlantic Access Area are best from May through July. Improving these parameters helps conserve the scallop resources in the access areas because it limits the number of individuals that scallop fishermen must harvest to reach a possession limit. Maximizing catch rates, meat weights, and meat quality will help the scallop fleet achieve optimum yield in the Mid-Atlantic Access Area, which is the central goal of the access area rotation program. Therefore, the greatest benefits to the scallop fishing industry, the scallop resource, and the public would come from earlier access in May. This provides more time for vessels to fish during the most productive time for the resource. Delaying the implementation of Framework 26 for 30 days would be contrary to the public interest because continuing with these lower allocations would negatively impact the access area rotation program, as well as the scallop fleet economically. Any delay in implementation past May 1st would reduce the amount of time that scallop fishermen are able to fish in the Mid-Atlantic Access Area under the conditions that are ideal under the access area rotation program.

For the reasons discussed above, to maximize conservation and economic benefits it necessary to allow access to the Mid-Atlantic Access Area on May 1. NMFS was unable to allow for a 30-day delay in effectiveness for Framework 26 rulemaking and allow access to the Mid-Atlantic Access Area on May 1. The Council's February 2015 submission of Framework 26 initiated a timeline for implementation that did not for both the 30-day delay in effectiveness and May 1 access to the Mid-Atlantic Access Area. However, NMFS must also consider the need of the scallop industry to have prior notice in order to make the necessary preparations to comply with changes to the gear required by the proactive accountability measure for bycatch. For these reasons, NMFS has determined that implementing these measures immediately, and with a 30-day delay in effectiveness of the proactive accountability measure for bycatch, would have the greatest public benefit.

NMFS, pursuant to section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), has completed a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) in support of Framework 26 in this final rule. The FRFA incorporates the IRFA, a summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, NMFS responses to those comments, a summary of the analyses completed in the Framework 26 EA, and this portion of the preamble. A summary of the IRFA was published in the proposed rule for this action and is not repeated here. A description of why this action was considered, the objectives of, and the legal basis for this rule is contained in Framework 26 and in the preamble to the proposed and this final rule, and is not repeated here. All of the documents that constitute the FRFA are available from NMFS and a copy of the IRFA, the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and the EA are available upon request (see ADDRESSES).

NMFS received no public comments directly in response to the IRFA summary or regarding economic impacts in the proposed rule.

The regulations affect all vessels with limited access and LAGC scallop permits. The Framework 26 document provides extensive information on the number and size of vessels and small businesses that will be affected by these regulations, by port and state (see ADDRESSES). There were 313 vessels that obtained full-time limited access permits in 2013, including 250 dredge, 52 small-dredge, and 11 scallop trawl permits. In the same year, there were also 34 part-time limited access permits in the sea scallop fishery. No vessels were issued occasional scallop permits. NMFS issued 212 LAGC IFQ permits in 2013, and 155 of these vessels actively fished for scallops that year (the remaining permits likely leased out scallop IFQ allocations with their permits in Confirmation of Permit History). The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a small business in shellfish fishery as a firm that is independently owned and operated and not dominant in its field of operation, with receipts of up to $5.5 M annually. Matching the potentially impacted 2013 fishing year permits described above (LA and LAGC IFQ) to calendar year 2013 ownership data results in 172 distinct ownership entities for the limited access fleet and 115 distinct ownership entities for the LAGC IFQ fleet. Of these, and based on the SBA guidelines, 154 of the limited access distinct ownership entities and all 115 of the LAGC IFQ entities are categorized as small. The remaining 18 of the limited access entities are categorized as large entities, all of which are shellfish businesses.

This action contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the PRA. The OMB, under the NMFS Greater Atlantic Region Scallop Report Family of Forms (OMB Control No. 0648-0491), approved the two requirements.

Under this action, all 347 limited access vessels are required to submit a pre-landing notification form for each access area trip through their VMS units. NMFS intends that this information collection will improve access area trip monitoring, as well as streamline a vessel's ability to fish multiple access area trips. Although this is a new requirement, it replaces other reporting procedures currently required for breaking an access area trip and receiving permission to take a compensation trip to harvest remaining unharvested scallop pounds from an access area trip. The action also includes a new requirement for some limited access vessels to report a pre-landing notification form through their VMS unit before changing their open area trip declaration to a “declared out of fishery declaration,” which is expected to add a burden to a very small portion of the fleet. This requirement only applies to a few vessels that intend to land open area scallops at ports south of Cape May, NJ, and want to steam to those ports while not using DAS. This new pre-landing requirement is necessary to enforce a measure intended to assist shoreside businesses in southern ports by providing an incentive for vessels to steam to ports far away from popular open area fishing grounds.

Notification requires the dissemination of the following information: Operator's permit number; amount of scallop meats and/or bushels to be landed; the estimated time of arrival; the landing port and state where the scallops will be offloaded; and the vessel trip report (VTR) serial number recorded from that trip's VTR. This information will be used by the NMFS Office of Law Enforcement to monitor vessel activity and ensure compliance with the regulations.

The burden estimates for these new requirements apply to all limited access vessels. In a given fishing year, NMFS estimates that for access area reporting, each of the 313 full-time limited access vessels will submit a pre-landing report 5 times (1,565 responses), and each of the 34 part-time limited access vessel will submit a pre-landing report up to 3 times (102 responses), for a total of 1,667 responses. Public reporting burden for submitting these pre-landing notification forms is estimated to average 5 minutes per response with an associated cost of $1.25, which includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

Therefore, 1,667 responses impose total compliance costs of $2,084 across the whole fishery; however, this new requirement replaces current trip termination and compensation trip reporting procedures, which were estimated to cost a total of $300 annually, so the additional burden for this new pre-landing requirement is actually $1,785 ($2,085−$300), or $5.14 per vessel. This figure is likely an overestimate, but accounts for the potential of higher access area scallop allocations in future fishing years. For the new DAS pre-landing requirements, NMFS estimates that this will likely impact 30 vessels and result in each of those vessels reporting one time a year. Public reporting burden for submitting these pre-landing notification forms is also estimated to average 5 minutes per response with an associated cost of $1.25. Therefore, the total cost of this will impose total compliance costs of $38 (30 vessels x $1.25). The total additional burden from both of these new pre-landing requirements will be $1,823.

NMFS sought public comment regarding: Whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. NMFS did not receive any comments regarding these collections of information.

Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. All currently approved NOAA collections of information may be viewed at: http://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/prasubs.html.

This action contains no other compliance costs. It does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal law.

During the development of Framework 26, NMFS and the Council considered ways to reduce the regulatory burden on, and provide flexibility for, the regulated entities in this action. For example, they removed the requirement to send in broken trip forms and process compensation trips, and they allowed carryover of all access area allocation 60 days into the following fishing year. Final actions and alternatives are described in detail in Framework 26, which includes an EA, RIR, and IRFA (available at ADDRESSES). The measures implemented by this final rule minimize the long-term economic impacts on small entities to the extent practicable. The only alternatives for the prescribed catch limits that were analyzed were those that met the legal requirements to implement effective conservation measures. Catch limits are fundamentally a scientific calculation based on the Scallop FMP control rules and SSC approval, and therefore are legally limited to the numbers contained in this rule. Moreover, the limited number of alternatives available for this action must be evaluated in the context of an ever-changing fishery management plan that has considered numerous alternatives over the years and have provided many mitigating measures applicable every fishing year.

Overall, this rule minimizes adverse long-term impacts by ensuring that management measures and catch limits result in sustainable fishing mortality rates that promote stock rebuilding, and as a result, maximize yield. The measures implemented by this final rule also provide additional flexibility for fishing operations in the short-term. This final rule implements several measures that enable small entities to offset some portion of the estimated economic impacts. These measure include: Removing the requirement to send in broken trip and compensation trip forms; allowing vessels to harvest access area quota in any of the three access areas; aligning the gear designed to protect sea turtles; allowing vessel landing at a port south of 39 degrees N. lat. to “declare out of fishery with product on board” to reduce DAS use while transiting; and modifying the State Waters Exemption Program to allow vessels to continue to fish in state waters if the NGOM TAC is reached.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 223 and 648 is amended as follows: