Federal Register Vol. 80, No.79,

The conservation compliance provisions in the current regulations at 7 CFR part 12 were originally authorized by the Food Security Act of 1985 (Pub. L. 99-198, referred to as the 1985 Farm Bill). Generally, the regulations specify that a person is ineligible for certain USDA benefits if they undertake certain activities relating to HEL and wetlands, specifically those involving planting agricultural commodities on HEL or a wetland, or converting a wetland for agricultural purposes.

HEL is cropland, hayland or pasture that can erode at excessive rates. As specified in § 12.21, soil map units and the erodibility index are used as the basis for identifying HEL. The erodibility index is a numerical value that expresses the potential erodibility of a soil in relation to its soil loss tolerance value without consideration of applied conservation practices or management. A field is identified as highly erodible if it contains a critical amount of soil map units with an erodibility index of eight or more. If a producer has a field identified as HEL, that producer is required to maintain a conservation system of practices that keeps erosion rates at a substantial reduction of soil loss in order to receive certain USDA benefits. Additional information can be found at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/wi/programs/?cid=nrcs142p2_020795.

A “wetland” is an area that has a predominance of wet soils; is inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of water tolerant vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions; and under normal circumstances supports a prevalence of such vegetation.

The major difference between the prior regulations for conservation compliance in 7 CFR part 12 and this rule is that persons who seek eligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidy must comply with the conservation compliance requirements as specified in this rule. Many persons who obtain Federal crop insurance already receive benefits from other USDA programs, for example, FSA programs that also require compliance with the conservation compliance rules. Therefore, this new requirement will only be a change for those persons who will be required to comply with the conservation compliance rules for the first time because of the 2014 Farm Bill.

The amendments made by section 2611 of the 2014 Farm Bill to the conservation compliance rules only apply to eligibility for FCIC paid premium subsidy. In addition, the time between the final determination of a violation and the loss of eligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidy is different from the other conservation compliance rules as described below. Therefore, while a violation of conservation compliance rules may not trigger an immediate loss of Federal crop insurance premium subsidy, it may trigger an immediate loss of other USDA program benefits, including any FSA and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) benefits specified in 7 CFR 12.4(d) and (e). Nothing in this rule changes violations that may result from other laws or regulations under the responsibility of another Federal government agency.

This interim rule amends the conservation compliance regulations in 7 CFR part 12 to:

(1) Implement 2014 Farm Bill (Pub. L. 113-79) provisions that make the eligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies subject to conservation compliance provisions;

(2) Modify easement provisions relating to mitigation banks as specified in the 2014 Farm Bill; and

(3) Clarify provisions regarding the extent of agency discretion with respect to certain violations.

This rule also implements sections 2609 and 2611 of the 2014 Farm Bill which amend provisions related to wetland mitigation banking and clarifies provisions regarding the extent of agency discretion with respect to certain violations. The provisions in this rule apply to all actions taken after February 7, 2014 (the date of enactment of the 2014 Farm Bill) by persons participating in USDA's crop insurance program.

FSA handles conservation compliance administrative functions, while technical determinations regarding HEL and wetlands are made by NRCS. The 2014 Farm Bill extends conservation compliance requirements to the eligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidy. Federal crop insurance is authorized by the Federal Crop Insurance Act (FCIA) (7 U.S.C. 1501-1524). The Federal crop insurance program is administered by the Risk Management Agency (RMA) on behalf of FCIC. Persons can obtain Federally subsidized crop insurance from Approved Insurance Providers (AIP), which are approved by RMA, on behalf of FCIC, to sell and service Federal crop insurance policies. The Federal crop insurance policies issued by these AIP are reinsured by FCIC in accordance with the FCIA. The FCIA also authorizes FCIC to subsidize Federal crop insurance premiums charged for the coverage provided by the Federal crop insurance policies reinsured by FCIC.

FCIC published an interim rule on July 1, 2014, (79 FR 37155-37166) that amended the Federal crop insurance regulations to implement the same conservation compliance provisions from section 2611 of the 2014 Farm Bill as this rule in 7 CFR parts 400, 402, 407, and 457. This rule is needed to make conforming changes to the general USDA regulations in 7 CFR part 12 that apply to programs from multiple USDA agencies.

Section 2611 of the 2014 Farm Bill links conservation compliance to eligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies paid by FCIC. Section 2611 provides exemptions and extended deadlines for certain persons to achieve compliance.

Persons who have not participated in, and were not affiliated with any person who participated in, any USDA program for which conservation compliance was a requirement will have additional time to develop and comply with an NRCS approved conservation plan for HEL. Section 2611(a)(2)(C) of the 2014 Farm Bill provides that persons who are subject to the HEL conservation requirements for the first time solely because of the linkage of conservation compliance to eligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidy will have 5 reinsurance years to develop and comply with a conservation plan approved by NRCS before they become ineligible for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies.

The beginning of the 5 reinsurance year period depends on whether a HEL determination was made on any of the land in the person's farming operation and whether administrative appeal rights have been exhausted for that determination. The 5 reinsurance year period begins:

• For persons who have no land with an NRCS HEL determination, the 5 reinsurance years begins the start of the reinsurance year (July 1) following the date NRCS makes a HEL determination and the person exhausts all their administrative appeals.

• For persons who have any land for which a NRCS HEL determination has been made and all administrative appeals have been exhausted, the 5 reinsurance years begins the start of the reinsurance year (July 1) following the date the person certifies compliance with FSA to be eligible for USDA benefits subject to the conservation compliance provisions.

Any affiliated person of a person requesting benefits that are subject to HEL and wetland conservation provisions must also be in compliance with those provisions. Such affiliated persons must also file a Form AD-1026 if the affiliated person has a separate farming interest. “Affiliated persons” include, with some exceptions, the spouse and minor child of the person; the partnership, joint venture, or other enterprise in which the person, spouse, or minor child of the person has an ownership interest or financial interest; and a trust in which the individual, business enterprise, or any person, spouse, or minor child is a beneficiary or has a financial interest. In the case of a violation, the offending person and affiliated persons such as spouses and entities in which the offending person has an interest will lose benefits at all their farming operation locations, not just the locale of the violation.

In addition to the time lags and deadlines applicable to initial compliance with this new conservation compliance requirement, there are exemptions and reasonable timeframes to comply for later conservation compliance issues. The exemptions and timelines described below apply only to eligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies, and not compliance requirements for other USDA programs. As specified in the 2014 Farm Bill and in this rule, ineligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidy because of a conservation compliance violation, whether associated with HEL or wetlands, will apply to reinsurance years after the date of a final determination of a violation, including all administrative appeals. Reinsurance years start on July 1 of any given year and end the following June 30. As an example, suppose that USDA determines that a violation occurred during the 2017 calendar year, and the determination is final, including all administrative appeals, on November 15, 2017, which is during the 2018 reinsurance year. The person will be ineligible for Federal crop insurance premium subsidy no earlier than the 2019 reinsurance year, which begins on July 1, 2018, and will remain ineligible until the violation is remedied. The person will remain eligible for a premium subsidy on any policies with a sales closing date before July 1, 2018.

In the case of wetland conservation requirements, as noted earlier, ineligibility for premium subsidy due to a violation of the wetland conservation provisions will be limited to wetland conservation violations that occur after February 7, 2014, and for which a final determination has been made and administrative appeals have been exhausted. The 2014 Farm Bill also provides a limited exemption for wetland conservation violations that occur after February 7, 2014, but before Federal crop insurance for an agricultural commodity becomes available to the person for the first time. This exemption provides up to 2 reinsurance years to mitigate such conversions. This rule specifies that USDA will consider Federal crop insurance to be “available” to the person if in any county in which the person had any interest in any acreage there is an FCIC-approved policy or plan of insurance available on the county actuarial documents that provide insurance for the crop, or the person obtained a written agreement to insure the crop in any county.

A person that is subject to wetland conservation provisions for the first time as a result of the 2014 Farm Bill will have 2 reinsurance years after the reinsurance year in which the final determination of violation is made, including all administrative appeals, to initiate a mitigation plan to remedy or mitigate the violation before they become ineligible for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies.

Persons not subject to the wetland conservation provisions for the first time as a result of the 2014 Farm Bill will have 1 reinsurance year after the reinsurance year in which the final determination of violation is made, including all administrative appeals, to initiate a mitigation plan to remedy or mitigate the violation before they become ineligible for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies.

Persons determined ineligible for premium subsidy paid by FCIC for a reinsurance year will be ineligible for a premium subsidy on all their policies and plans of insurance, unless the specific exemptions apply.

The 2014 Farm Bill included tenant relief provisions applicable to the wetland conservation provisions, but only for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies. In addition, the 2014 Farm Bill amendments made the HEL tenant relief provisions applicable to eligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies. In both cases, the tenant relief provisions provide that the Secretary may limit ineligibility only to the farm that is the basis for the ineligibility. Federal crop insurance policies under FCIA are constructed on the basis of persons, counties, and units, which may include multiple farms. Although the 2014 Farm Bill used the word “farm,” FCIC does not allow for differing terms of insurance on a “farm” basis, and therefore, does not provide premium subsides on such basis. Therefore, with regard to Federal crop insurance premium subsidy, application of the tenant relief provisions will be achieved through a prorated reduction of premium subsidy on all of a person's policies and plans of insurance. Specifically, a tenant's or sharecropper's premium subsidy on all policies and plans of insurance will be reduced, in lieu of ineligibility for all premium subsidy, when the tenant or sharecropper made a good faith effort to comply with the conservation compliance provisions, the owner of the farm refuses to allow the tenant or sharecropper to comply with the provisions, FSA determines there is no scheme or device, and the tenant or sharecropper complies with the provisions that are under their control. The reduction in premium subsidy will be determined by comparing the total number of cropland acres on the farm on which the violation occurs to the total number of cropland acres on all farms in the nation in which the tenant or sharecropper has an interest. The farms and cropland acres used to determine the reduction percentage will be the farms and cropland acres of the tenant or sharecropper for the reinsurance year in which the tenant or sharecropper is determined ineligible. The percentage reduction will be applied to all policies and plans of insurance of the tenant or sharecropper in the reinsurance year subsequent to the reinsurance year in which the tenant or sharecropper is determined ineligible. A landlord's premium subsidy on all policies and plans of insurance will be prorated in the same manner when the landlord is determined in violation because of the actions or inactions of their tenant or sharecropper.

Persons who were subject to HEL conservation requirements in the past because they participated in USDA programs, stopped participating in those programs before February 7, 2014, but would have been in violation of the HEL requirements had they continued participation in such programs after February 7, 2014, have 2 reinsurance years to develop and comply with a conservation plan approved by NRCS before they become ineligible for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies. The 2 reinsurance years begins the start of the reinsurance year (July 1) following the date the person certifies compliance with FSA to be eligible for USDA benefits subject to the conservation compliance provisions.

For some wetland conversions that impact less than 5 acres on the entire farm, a person may regain eligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidy by making a payment equal to 150 percent of the cost of mitigation of the converted wetland in lieu of restoring or mitigating the lost wetland functions and values. The applicability of this exemption is at the discretion and approval of NRCS and the funds will be deposited in an account to be used later for wetland restoration. This exception is in lieu of the mitigation actions that a person would otherwise be required to conduct to restore the lost wetland functions and values of the converted wetland. While it provides flexibility to a person for how to remedy a small acreage violation, the text of the exception indicates that the intention of the 2014 Farm Bill is to limit the scope of its availability, specifying that it applies to any violation that “impacts less than 5 acres of the entire farm.” To ensure that this exception can be appropriately tracked and limit the potential for its abuse, the regulation specifies that a person is limited to only one exemption per farm. This is a discretionary change USDA is making to ensure the integrity of the intention that it impacts less than 5 acres of the entire farm and not just 5 acres per occurrence, which could add up to impacting much more than the intended 5 acres. Additionally, USDA clarifies in the regulation that the payment to the fund is not refundable, even if the person subsequently restores the wetland that had been converted. This exemption applies only to eligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies.

For wetland conservation violations, if the person acted in good faith and without intent to commit the violation, FSA may waive the ineligibility provisions for 2 reinsurance years to allow the person to remedy or mitigate the converted wetland.

As required by section 2611 of the 2014 Farm Bill, all persons seeking eligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidy must have on file a certification of compliance (AD-1026) at the local FSA office.

For the 2016 and every subsequent reinsurance year, the deadline to file a Form AD-1026 is June 1 prior to the reinsurance year. Outreach and informational materials for the 2016 reinsurance year will include information on how to contact the local FSA office. Persons must have a Form AD-1026 on file with FSA on or before the June 1 prior to the beginning of a given reinsurance year (which begins on July 1). A person will have until the first applicable crop insurance sales closing date to provide the information for a Form AD-1026 if the person either is unable to file a Form AD-1026 by June 1 due to circumstances beyond the person's control, or the person in good faith filed a Form AD-1026 and FSA subsequently determined that additional information is needed but the person is unable to comply by July 1 due to circumstances beyond the person's control. A new AD-1026 only needs to be filed if a change in the farming operation has occurred that results in the previously filed AD-1026 being incorrect, or there has been a violation of the HEL or wetland conservation provisions negating the previously filed AD-1026.

On Form AD-1026, persons self-certify compliance with HEL and wetland conservation requirements. If the person indicates on the form that they have conducted an activity that might lead to a violation, such as creating new drainage systems, land leveling, filling, dredging, land clearing, excavation, or stump removal since 1985 on their land, they will be asked for additional information that will be forwarded to NRCS for evaluation. If NRCS fails to complete an evaluation of the person's Form AD-1026, or successor form in a timely manner after all documentation has been provided to NRCS, the person will not be ineligible for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies for a policy or plan of insurance for a violation that occurred prior to NRCS completing the evaluation.

Failure to timely file a Form AD-1026 will result in ineligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies for the entire reinsurance year, unless the person can demonstrate they began farming for the first time after June 1 but prior to the beginning of the reinsurance year. For example, a person who started farming for the first time on June 15, 2015, will be eligible for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies for the 2016 reinsurance year without a Form AD-1026 on file with FSA. However, in that case, the person must file Form AD-1026 with FSA on or before June 1, 2016 to be eligible for premium subsidy for the 2017 reinsurance year.

Failure to notify USDA and revise the Form AD-1026 when required may result in assessment of a monetary penalty, as determined by NRCS, but the penalty will never exceed the total amount of Federal crop insurance premium subsidy paid by FCIC for the person on all policies and plans of insurance for all years the person is determined to have been in violation. The monetary penalty is assessed for wetland conservation compliance only.

USDA Service Centers will provide additional information and assistance to persons in meeting compliance requirements. USDA will determine a person's eligibility for premium subsidy paid by FCIC at a time that is as close to the beginning of the next reinsurance year (July 1) as practical. The determination will be based on FSA and NRCS determinations regarding conservation compliance. For example, a person who has a determination of ineligibility that is final on June 1, 2015, (2015 reinsurance year) will, unless otherwise exempted, be ineligible for premium subsidy effective July 1, 2015, the start of the 2016 reinsurance year, and will not be eligible for any premium subsidy for any policies or plans of insurance during the 2016 reinsurance year. Even if the person becomes compliant during the 2016 reinsurance year, the person will not be eligible for premium subsidy until the 2017 reinsurance year, starting on July 1, 2016.

For acts or situations of non-compliance or failure to certify compliance according to this part, ineligibility for Federal crop insurance premium subsidies will be applied beginning with the 2016 reinsurance year for any Federally reinsured policy or plan of insurance with a sales closing date on or after July 1, 2015.

The rule also implements section 2609 of the 2014 Farm Bill, which amends provisions related to wetland mitigation banking. Wetland mitigation banking is a form of environmental market trading where wetlands are created, enhanced, or restored to create marketable wetland credits (acres and functions). The 1985 Farm Bill, the Clean Water Act, and some State wetland laws specify that negative impacts to existing wetlands can be mitigated by providing restored, enhanced, or created wetlands as compensation for the losses. The replacement of impacted wetlands with new wetlands is called wetland mitigation. Wetland mitigation banking is a type of wetland mitigation where wetlands are created, enhanced, or restored prior to impacts and the wetlands are sold to those required to compensate for the impacts. These credits are sold to others as compensation for unavoidable wetland impacts. For more information on the existing wetlands mitigation banking program, see http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/water/wetlands/wmb/.

As specified in the current regulations, persons may maintain their payment eligibility for most USDA benefits if the wetland values, acreage, and functions of any wetland conversion activity are adequately mitigated, as determined by NRCS, through the restoration of a converted wetland, the enhancement of an existing wetland, or the creation of a new wetland. However, agricultural mitigation options are limited, and, to date, mitigation banks are not abundant nor are they readily accessible. Section 2609 of the 2014 Farm Bill provides $10 million of the USDA's Commodity Credit Corporation funds to operate a mitigation banking program and allows USDA to have third parties hold the wetland mitigation easements, rather than USDA itself.

NRCS is modifying the mitigation bank provisions in this rule to clarify who may hold title to wetland mitigation easements under the wetland conservation provisions. The existing regulations require that the person grant an easement to USDA to protect the wetland that is providing the mitigation of wetland functions and benefits. Section 2609 of the 2014 Farm Bill specifies that USDA is no longer required to hold the easements in a mitigation bank. Therefore, this rule amends 7 CFR 12.5 to authorize other qualifying entities, which are recognized by USDA, to hold mitigation banking easements granted by a person who wishes to maintain payment eligibility under the wetland conservation provision, and remove the requirement that an easement be granted to USDA for mitigation sites when part of a mitigation banking program that is operated by USDA.

To encourage the development of mitigation banks, USDA will implement a prioritized and competitive mitigation banking program through an Announcement of Program Funding that focuses on agricultural wetlands. Application selection criteria will emphasize areas with the greatest opportunities for using wetland banking mitigation for agricultural purposes.

This rule updates the general applicability section by removing unneeded references. Regulation changes in this rule do not affect past obligations and liabilities. Reference to certain former territories of the United States are removed because they were covered by 1985 Farm Bill provisions as trust territories only and no longer have that status.

This rule also makes a minor revision to the ineligibility determination for wetland conservation violations to make the regulation consistent with the statutory requirement; the change is to clarify the limited circumstances for which partial ineligibility may apply instead of complete ineligibility. Section 1221(b) of the 1985 Farm Bill (16 U.S.C. 3821) allows the Secretary to determine whether all or a part of a person's benefits will be lost because of violations for producing an agricultural commodity on a converted wetland. There are two types of wetland conservation violations in 16 U.S.C. 3821 that may result in ineligibility for some or all of a person's benefits; those violations are production on converted wetland (16 U.S.C. 3821(a)) and wetland conversion (16 U.S.C. 3821(d)) for the purpose of agricultural production. The consequences for the two types of wetland conservation violations are not the same. For production on converted wetland, 16 U.S.C. 3821(a)(2) specifies that the person's ineligibility is to be in an amount determined by the Secretary to be proportionate to the severity of the violation and 16 U.S.C. 3821(b) further specifies that if a person is determined to have produced an agricultural commodity on converted wetland, the Secretary determines which of, and the amount of, benefits for which the person will be ineligible due to that violation. For a wetland conversion violation, 16 U.S.C. 3821(d) provides that if a person converts a wetland making the production of an agricultural commodity possible on such converted wetland, the person will be ineligible for benefits for that crop year and all subsequent crop years. There is no authority under 16 U.S.C. 3821 for the Secretary to make a determination of only partial ineligibility for a wetland conversion violation, or allow a reduction in benefits proportionate to the severity of the violation or a limited reduction to certain benefits or amounts instead of complete ineligibility. Unless an exemption applies, a wetland conversion violation results in ineligibility for all benefits for the year of violation and all subsequent years. In the past, the text in § 12.4(c) has been used by persons who have been determined to have converted a wetland to argue that the Secretary has discretion to partially reduce ineligibility for a wetland conversion in the same manner allowed by 16 U.S.C. 3821 for a violation of production on converted wetland. There is no such discretion authorized under 16 U.S.C. 3821 for a wetland conversion; therefore, the reference to a potential reduction in ineligibility for wetland conversion is being removed by this rule. The specific change is to remove the reference to paragraph (a)(3) for the potential ineligibility reduction.

A section with obsolete information on information collection requirements is removed.

In general, the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking be published in the Federal Register and interested persons be given an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking through submission of written data, views, or arguments with or without opportunity for oral presentation, except when the rule involves a matter relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts. Section 2608 of the 2014 Farm Bill requires that the programs of Title II be implemented by interim rules effective on publication with an opportunity for notice and comment.

The primary purpose of this rule is to revise USDA conservation compliance regulations to incorporate the 2014 Farm Bill provisions that make persons receiving Federal crop insurance premium subsidies subject to conservation compliance requirements. As noted above, FCIC published an interim rule on July 1, 2014, that amended Federal crop insurance regulations to implement this provision from section 2611 of the 2014 Farm Bill. This rule is making conforming changes to the general USDA regulations in 7 CFR part 12 that apply to programs from multiple USDA agencies.

The amendments made by section 2611 of the 2014 Farm Bill, and included in this rule, extend the existing conservation compliance requirements to apply to FCIC premium subsidy recipients. Section 2611 does not include any changes to the existing requirements for conservation compliance (often referred to as “Sodbuster” and “Swampbuster”) specified in the 1985 Farm Bill and in 16 U.S.C. 3801-3824, the definition of HEL, the Wetland Conservation Program, or other conservation programs. However, in the context of making the regulatory changes required by section 2611, we are requesting comments on specific changes USDA could consider making.

For example, all persons who produce agricultural commodities are required to protect all cropland classified as HEL from excessive erosion as a condition of eligibility for USDA programs. On lands which have a cropping history prior to December 23, 1985, compliance conservation systems must result in a “substantial reduction” in soil erosion. On lands converted to crop production after December 23, 1985, compliance conservation systems must result in “no substantial increase” in soil erosion. USDA has a goal of working with farmers to help them stay in compliance or bring them into compliance through progressive planning and implementation. We welcome comments on what additional steps USDA could take to achieve these goals. Agricultural production techniques have changed significantly since the passage of the 1985 Farm Bill. While conservation systems provide a substantial reduction in soil erosion, are there additional conservation activities that USDA could consider to ensure that agricultural production and soil erosion reduction goals from HEL soils are met?

As another example, since December 23, 1985, the “Swampbuster” provision helps preserve the environmental functions and values of wetlands, including flood control, sediment control, groundwater recharge, water quality, wildlife habitat, recreation, and esthetics. Agricultural production techniques have changed significantly since the passage of the 1985 Farm Bill. Are there additional steps USDA should consider to ensure these benefits for wetlands are retained?

In your comments, please suggest specific alternatives and provide data, if available, for the suggestion as it relates to the goals of conservation compliance. Specifically, USDA requests comments on the following questions:

• What information could USDA collect to simplify the conservation compliance process, expedite determinations, and allow the USDA to identify more complex determination requests to evaluate first?

• What information could USDA reasonably collect that would provide more information on derived conservation benefits from conservation compliance activities? What would be the burden of collecting that information?

• With the addition of new persons being subject to conservation compliance requirements, how should USDA prioritize the evaluation of the submitted Form AD-1026 information?

USDA is also requesting comments on conservation compliance for the retrospective review of regulations initiative. In accordance with Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” and Executive Order 13610, “Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens,” USDA continues to review its existing regulations as well as its methods for gathering information. This evaluation helps USDA to measure its effectiveness in implementing its regulations. The review will continue to focus on:

• Identifying whether information technology can be used to replace paper submissions with electronic submissions;

• Streamlining or redesigning existing information collecting methods in order to reduce any burdens on the public for participating in and complying with USDA programs;

• Reducing duplication through increased data sharing and harmonizing programs that have similar regulatory requirements; and

• Providing increased regulatory flexibility to achieve desired program outcomes and save money.

Please provide information on these issues in your comment as specified in the ADDRESSES section. Specific comments addressing the issues raised above are most helpful; all comments are welcome. Proposals for alternatives should address data sources, costs, and the provisions of the 2014 Farm Bill that support the alternative. The following suggestions may be helpful for preparing your comments:

• Explain your views as clearly as possible.

• Describe any assumptions that you used.

• Provide any technical information and data on which you based your views.

• Provide specific examples to illustrate your points.

• Offer specific alternatives to the current regulations or policies and indicate the source of necessary data, the estimated cost of obtaining the data, and how the data can be verified.

• Submit your comments to be received by FSA by the comment period deadline.

The Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) provides generally that before rules are issued by Government agencies, the rule is required to be published in the Federal Register, and the required publication of a substantive rule is to be not less than 30 days before its effective date. However, Section 2608 of the 2014 Farm Bill provides that this interim rule be effective on publication.

Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasized the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated this rule as significant under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and, therefore, OMB has reviewed this rule. A summary of the cost-benefit analysis of this rule is provided below and the full cost benefit analysis is available on regulations.gov.

Estimated costs to persons and the government through 2020 are expected to be between $55 million and $86.5 million for the conservation compliance requirements and $10 million for the wetlands mitigation banking that reflects new authority to operate or work with third parties to operate a wetland mitigation banking program. These are the total costs, not annual costs. While the $10 million may increase wetland mitigation bank activity, the negligible amount in the agricultural context to date makes it impossible to estimate the impact this will have on conservation compliance costs.

Implementing the 2014 Farm Bill provisions for conservation compliance is expected to result in benefits of extending HEL and wetland conservation provisions to up to 1.5 million acres of HEL and 1.1 million acres of wetlands, which could reduce soil erosion, enhance water quality, and create wildlife habitat.

For the conservation compliance requirements, given that most persons who have Federal crop insurance are already subject to conservation compliance due to participation in other USDA programs, the benefits as a whole are expected to extend HEL and wetland conservation provisions to up to 1.5 million acres of HEL and 1.1 million acres of wetlands and could reduce soil erosion, enhance water quality, and create wildlife habitat. Ecological benefits could be measurable on individual properties if those properties were not previously subject to conservation compliance and were not in compliance, which is not expected to be common. We estimate that between 16,000 and 25,000 persons or entities will be impacted by the expanded requirements, and that slightly less than a third of those producers will need a conservation plan.

The conservation compliance provisions have been in place since 1985, and the interim rule will not impose any new compliance costs on persons that were already in compliance. There will be increased training and staffing costs associated with ensuring that NRCS staff conduct HEL and wetland determinations correctly for persons who receive subsidy premiums for Federal crop insurance. Government costs for making wetlands and HEL determinations, developing conservation plans for producers, providing technical assistance, and providing financial assistance with implementation costs for conservation practices, are expected to total between $19.7 million and $30.9 million between 2015 and 2020. Producers' costs for implementing conservation practices to achieve compliance are estimated at between $35.3 million and $55.5 million between 2015 and 2020, for a one-time overall cost to the government and to producers combined of $55 million to $86.5 million.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule whenever an agency is required by the Administrative Procedure Act or any other law to publish a proposed rule, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. All conservation compliance eligibility requirements are the same for all persons regardless of the size of their farming operation. This rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the Secretary of Agriculture and FSA are not required by any law to publish a proposed rule for this rulemaking initiative.

The environmental impacts of this rule have been considered in a manner consistent with the provisions of NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and FSA regulations for compliance with NEPA (7 CFR part 799). The 2014 Farm Bill mandates the expansion of current conservation compliance requirements to apply to persons who obtain subsidized Federal crop insurance under FCIA and it slightly modifies the existing wetlands “Mitigation Banking” program to remove the requirement that USDA hold easements in the mitigation program. These are mandatory provisions and USDA does not have discretion over whether or not they are implemented. We have determined that the limited discretion in the way in which the mandatory provisions can be implemented are administrative clarifications of aspects that were not defined in the mandatory provisions; therefore, they are not subject to review under NEPA. As such, USDA will not prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement for this regulatory action.

Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” requires consultation with State and local officials. The objectives of the Executive Order are to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened Federalism, by relying on State and local processes for State and local government coordination and review of proposed Federal Financial assistance and direct Federal development. This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires consultation with State and local officials. See the notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, published in the Federal Register on June 24, 1983 (48 FR 29115).

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule will not preempt State or local laws, regulations, or policies unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. The rule has retroactive effect in that the provisions in this rule apply to all actions taken after February 7, 2014, (the date of enactment of the 2014 Farm Bill) by USDA program participants. Before any judicial action may be brought regarding the provisions of this rule, appeal provisions of 7 CFR parts 11, 614, and 780 must be exhausted.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13132, “Federalism.” The policies contained in this rule do not have any substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the Federal government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor does this rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments. Therefore, consultation with the States is not required.

This rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects 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.

USDA has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have tribal implications that require tribal consultation under Executive Order 13175. If a Tribe requests consultation, FSA, NRCS, or RMA will work with the USDA Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions, and modifications identified in this rule are not expressly mandated by the 2014 Farm Bill.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, Pub. L. 104-4) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments, or the private sector. Agencies generally need to prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with Federal mandates that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more in any year for State, local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector. UMRA generally requires agencies to consider alternatives and adopt the more cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. This rule contains no Federal mandates under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, Pub. L. 104-4). In addition, the Secretary of Agriculture is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this rule. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.

This rule has a potential impact on participants for many programs listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance in the Agency Program Index under the Department of Agriculture.

Section 2608 of the 2014 Farm Bill provides that regulations issued under Title II—Conservation are exempt from the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

USDA is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

For the reasons explained above, USDA amends 7 CFR part 12 as follows:

Background

The regulations in “Subpart-Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-71, referred to below as the regulations) prohibit or restrict the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent the introduction and dissemination of plant pests that are new to or not widely distributed within the United States. The national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Peru has requested that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) amend the regulations to allow fresh papayas (Carica papaya) to be imported from Peru into the continental United States.

On August 9, 2013, we published in the Federal Register (78 FR 48628-48631, Docket No. APHIS-2012-0014) a proposal 1 to amend the regulations to allow, under certain conditions, the importation of commercial consignments of fresh papayas from Peru into the continental United States. Consistent with the risk management document that accompanied the proposed rule, we proposed to require that the papayas be subjected to a systems approach to pest mitigation. This proposed systems approach included requirements to produce the papayas at places of production registered with the NPPO of Peru, required packing procedures designed to exclude quarantine pests, and required fruit fly trapping, field sanitation, and hot water treatment to remove pests of concern from the pathway. We proposed to allow only commercial consignments of papayas to be imported from Peru and to require that consignments of papayas from Peru be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of Peru stating that the papayas were grown, packed, and shipped in accordance with the proposed requirements.

We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending October 8, 2013. We received one comment by that date, from a private citizen. The commenter supported the risk mitigation approach in the proposed rule, but suggested that an integrated pest management approach might also be effective at managing the risk associated with Ceratitis capitata, the Mediterranean fruit fly.

We based the proposed risk mitigations on those in § 319.56-25, which have allowed the pest-free importation of papaya from certain areas of Brazil, Central America, Colombia, and Ecuador. We are open to alternative approaches of mitigating C. capitata, although we would need a request from the NPPO of Peru to be submitted in accordance with § 319.5 to begin considering such approaches.

Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, without change.

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

In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the potential economic effects of this action on small entities. The analysis is summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available on the Regulations.gov Web site (see footnote 1 in this document for a link to Regulations.gov) or by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

This final rule will allow the importation of fresh papaya fruit from Peru into the continental United States. Papaya is a relatively minor crop in the United States that is primarily grown in Hawaii and, to a lesser extent, in Florida. Very small acreages of papaya are found in Texas and California.

Peru is expected to ship up to 36 metric tons of fresh papaya to the United States per year. This amount will be equivalent to less than 0.03 percent of net imports of fresh papaya by the United States in 2012. With U.S. net imports estimated to be at least eight times as large as U.S. fresh papaya production, any market effects of such a relatively negligible change in papaya imports are as likely to impact foreign suppliers as they are U.S. producers. In addition, effects for the majority of U.S. papaya producers, who are located in Hawaii, will be further muted by the prohibition on entry of fresh papaya from Peru into that State. While most, if not all, U.S. papaya farms are small entities, we expect this final rule to have a very minor impact regardless of the size of operation.

Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information collection or recordkeeping requirements included in this final rule, which were filed under 0579-0410, have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). When OMB notifies us of its decision, if approval is denied, we will publish a document in the Federal Register providing notice of what action we plan to take.

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

Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR part 319 as follows:

I. Background

The FDIC promulgated part 340 in 2000 to implement section 11(p) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, (12 U.S.C. 1821(p) (section 11(p)). Under section 11(p), individuals or entities whose acts or omissions have, or may have, contributed to the failure of an insured depository institution (failed institution) cannot buy the assets of that failed institution from the FDIC. The FDIC expanded the purchaser eligibility restriction as permitted by statute when it promulgated part 340 by precluding such individuals or entities from purchasing the assets of any failed institution, not only the particular institution affected by the actions of the respective individuals or entities. As provided in section 11(p), part 340 also prohibits the sale of assets involving FDIC financing to certain persons who have defaulted on obligations of $1 million or more, in aggregate, owed to a failed insured depository institution or the FDIC and who have made fraudulent misrepresentations in connection with any of those obligations. Compliance with part 340 is established through a self-certification process in which a prospective purchaser certifies that it is eligible to purchase an asset from the FDIC and that the FDIC's sale of an asset to such prospective purchaser would not be restricted under section 11(p) or part 340.

In March of 2014, the FDIC promulgated § 380.13 to implement section 210(r) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, (12 U.S.C. 5390(r) (section 210(r)). Section 210(r) prohibits certain sales of assets held by the FDIC in the course of liquidating a covered financial company. Because section 210(r) and section 11(p) share substantially similar statutory language, part 340 served as a model for the development of § 380.13. While many aspects of part 340 were included in § 380.13, FDIC staff identified new or different concepts to include in § 380.13 that were not already in part 340. The addition of these concepts into part 340 will improve part 340 and make it more consistent with § 380.13.

On October 21, 2014, the Board of Directors approved a notice of proposed rulemaking entitled “Restrictions on Sale of Assets by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation” (the proposed rule), which was published in the Federal Register on October 24, 2014 with a 60-day comment period that ended on December 23, 2014.1 One comment letter addressing the proposed rule was received by the FDIC expressing general support for the proposed rule. The final rule is substantively the same as the proposed rule.

With this final rule, the FDIC is adopting the revisions to part 340 in substantially the same form as they were presented in the proposed rule. Part 340 is revised in a number of ways. Some revisions are significant, substantive changes and others are non-substantive, technical or conforming changes. This supplemental information section describes the substantive changes made by the final rule.

The title of part 340 is revised to clarify that part 340 applies to sales of assets of a failed institution (specifically, a failed insured depository institution). This change is made to help distinguish part 340 from § 380.13, which applies to sales of assets of a covered financial company by the FDIC. While the two rules will preclude sales to certain prospective purchasers in a very similar manner, each pertains to a separate set of asset sales by the FDIC.

The final rule amends § 340.1(b), which sets forth the purpose of part 340, to extend the restrictions on sales of assets of a failed institution to individuals or entities who are also prohibited from purchasing assets of a covered financial company from the FDIC under section 210(r) and § 380.13. This ensures consistency between part 340 and § 380.13. Under § 380.13, individuals or entities prohibited from purchasing assets of a failed institution under part 340 are also prohibited from purchasing assets of a covered financial company under § 380.13. Likewise, individuals or entities prohibited from purchasing assets of a covered financial company under § 380.13 are prohibited from purchasing assets of a failed institution under part 340.

The final rule makes three changes to clarify part 340's scope of coverage, set forth in § 340.1(c). First, the final rule clarifies the applicability of part 340 to sales of assets by a subsidiary of a failed institution or by a bridge depository institution. Sales of assets of a failed institution's subsidiary or a bridge depository institution are not expressly subject to section 11(p). However, if the FDIC has the right to control the terms of a sale of assets of a failed institution's subsidiary or a bridge depository institution, or has the ability to control selection of the purchaser of those assets under an agency agreement or as shareholder, the restrictions set forth in section 11(p) and part 340 should apply. The FDIC has discretionary authority to expand the scope of coverage because section 11(p) sets the minimum requirements for restrictions on sales of assets, and the FDIC may prescribe further restrictions on its own accord. Under the final rule's revision of part 340, the restrictions apply to sales of assets of a failed institution's subsidiary or a bridge depository institution if the FDIC controls the terms of the sale by agreement or as shareholder.

Second, the final rule amends § 340.1 to explicitly state that part 340 does not apply to certain types of transactions involving marketable securities and other financial instruments. Under § 340.1(c)(5), a sale of a security or a group or index of securities, a commodity, or any qualified financial contract that, in each case, customarily is traded through a financial intermediary where the seller cannot control selection of the purchaser would not be covered by part 340 if the sale is to be consummated through that customary practice. For example, if the FDIC were to sell publicly-traded stocks or bonds that the failed institution held, it might engage a broker or custodian to conduct or facilitate the sale. The broker or custodian would then tender the securities to the market and accept prevailing market terms offered by another broker, a specialist, a central counterparty or a similar financial intermediary who would then sell the security to another purchaser. In this scenario, it is not possible for the FDIC to control selection of the end purchaser at the time of sale. Therefore, the transaction cannot be a sale covered by section 11(p) because the FDIC would have no way to select the prospective purchaser or determine whether that purchaser would or would not be prohibited from purchasing the asset. Moreover, a prospective purchaser of such assets will not be able to select the FDIC as the seller and therefore could not determine whether section 11(p) and part 340 apply to the transaction. The final rule defines the term “financial intermediary,” as discussed below, for the purposes of part 340. This express limitation on the scope of part 340's coverage will provide greater certainty regarding the applicability of section 11(p) and part 340 to market participants and FDIC staff who conduct asset sales.

Third, the final rule clarifies in § 340.1(c)(6) that part 340 is not applicable to a judicial sale or a trustee's sale of property securing an obligation to the FDIC if the sale is not conducted or controlled by the FDIC. Although the FDIC could have a security interest in property serving as collateral and therefore the authority to initiate a foreclosure action, the selection of the purchaser and terms of the sale are not necessarily within the FDIC's control. Rather, a court or trustee would conduct the sale in accordance with applicable state law and would select the purchaser. In this situation, the sale is not a sale by the FDIC. While the plain language of part 340 does not suggest that such a sale would fall within its scope, the FDIC makes this change for the sake of clarity. This exception does not affect sales if the FDIC is in possession of the collateral property and conducts the sale itself, however. Where the FDIC has control over the manner and terms of the sale, it will require the prospective purchaser's certification that the prospective purchaser is not prohibited under section 11(p) or part 340 from purchasing the asset.

Section 340.2 sets forth definitions for certain terms used in part 340 and several are revised by the final rule. The definition of “associated person” is revised to include limited liability companies of which an individual is a member (or was a member at the time of the occurrence of any event that would result in a restriction on sale as set forth in § 340.4) if the prospective purchaser of assets is an individual and, if the prospective purchaser is a limited liability company, to include the manager of the limited liability company. The definition of “failed institution” is revised to remove reference to entities “owned and controlled” by the failed institution because the revision to § 340.1(c), discussed above, explicitly states that sales of subsidiary assets are covered under part 340 if the FDIC controls the terms of the sale by agreement or in its role as shareholder. Additionally, references to the Resolution Trust Corporation and RTC are removed in favor of referencing the FDIC's “predecessor” agencies.

The final rule also adds a new term for use in part 340, “financial intermediary,” which is defined to mean any broker, dealer, bank, underwriter, exchange, clearing agency registered with the SEC under section 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, transfer agent (as defined in section 3(a)(25) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934), central counterparty or any other entity whose role is to facilitate a transaction by, as a riskless intermediary, purchasing a security or qualified financial contract from one counterparty and then selling it to another. This definition is used to identify transactions of marketable financial instruments described in § 340.1(c) that would not be covered by section 11(p) or part 340. Although not separately defined in the final rule, the term “security” is intended to apply broadly and include, without limitation, all instruments which constitute securities under Federal securities laws.

Section 340.4 sets forth the conditions under which a person (whether an individual or entity) is prohibited from acquiring assets of a failed institution from the FDIC. Those conditions are that the person, or its associated person: (1) Participated as an officer or director of a failed institution or of an affiliate of a failed institution, “in a material way in a transaction that caused a substantial loss to the failed institution” (as defined in paragraph (b) of § 340.4); (2) has been removed from a failed institution by order of a primary federal regulatory agency; (3) engaged in a “pattern or practice of defalcation” (as defined in paragraph (c) of § 340.4) with respect to obligations owed to a failed institution; or (4) committed a certain criminal offense against a financial institution and is in default on an obligation owed by that person or its associated person. The final rule adds a fifth restriction: Prohibition from purchasing assets of a covered financial company from the FDIC. As explained above, the FDIC believes part 340 should also restrict the sale of assets of a failed institution to individuals or entities who are also prohibited from purchasing assets of a covered financial company from the FDIC under section 210(r) and § 380.13. This ensures consistent treatment of prospective purchasers of assets from the FDIC, whether such assets are assets of a covered financial company or of a failed institution.

The final rule amends paragraph (a) of § 340.7, which sets forth the requirement that a prospective purchaser certify that none of the restrictions set forth in part 340 apply to the sale, by adding a sentence stating that the person must also certify that it is not using a straw purchaser or other subterfuge to allow it to purchase an asset of an insured depository institution from the FDIC or benefit from such transaction if such person would otherwise be ineligible to purchase assets from the FDIC under part 340. The FDIC's form certification (the Purchaser Eligibility Certification, FDIC Form 7300/06) already includes a statement under which a prospective purchaser certifies that neither the identity nor form of the prospective purchaser, nor any aspect of the contemplated transaction, has been created or altered to allow an individual or entity who otherwise would be ineligible to purchase assets of a failed institution from the FDIC to benefit from the sale. Explicitly stating this requirement in the regulatory text itself strengthens part 340.

Paragraph (b) of § 340.7, which excepts from the self-certification requirement certain federal agencies or instrumentalities and states or political subdivisions of states, is revised in the final rule to include bridge depository institutions as well. A bridge depository institution is expected to be in compliance with part 340 because such entity is newly chartered and subject to control or oversight by the FDIC.

Finally, the final rule revises § 340.8, which provides that part 340 does not apply if the sale resolves or settles a person's obligation to the FDIC, to also except a sale that resolves a claim that the FDIC has asserted against a person. This is not intended to be a substantive change but to more closely track section 11(p), which excepts sales that resolve or settle claims as well as obligations. This change ensures that the regulation cites both bases for exception set forth in the statute. It also ensures consistency with the equivalent provision in paragraph (a)(2)(vi) of § 380.13.

The final rule's changes to part 340 ensure consistency among part 340 and § 380.13. This will facilitate efficient administration of the two rules and will help the public better understand how and when each applies. One comment submitted in response to the proposed rule noted that the revisions to part 340 will help to clarify the purpose, scope and applicability, and will make part 340 more consistent with the parallel provision in the FDIC's Orderly Liquidation Authority regulations that implements section 210(r) (§ 380.13). The comment goes on to state that the proposed revisions will improve regulatory consistency and understandability, align better with market practices, and promote the regulatory objectives and intentions under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.

The substantive amendments and technical and conforming changes to part 340 that are made in the final rule are extensive. Therefore, the FDIC is revising and restating the text of part 340 in full rather than through fragmentary amendments.

In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the FDIC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.2 The FDIC has developed a purchaser eligibility certification form for use by prospective purchasers of assets of a failed institution to establish compliance with part 340. The certification is an OMB-approved collection of information under the PRA.3 The FDIC expects that the net PRA burden estimates of this collection will not be affected by the changes made in the final rule. Any subsequent changes to the form will be submitted by the FDIC to OMB for review and approval.

Title of Information Collection: Purchaser Eligibility Certification.

OMB Control Number: 3064-0135.

Form Number: FDIC Form 7300/06.

Affected Public: Prospective purchasers of failed insured depository institution assets.

Frequency of Response: Event generated.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,500.

Time per Response: 30 minutes.

Total Estimated Annual Burden: 750 hours.

The FDIC has a continuing interest in comments on paperwork burden. Comments are invited on (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that an agency either certify that a final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities or prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis of the rule and publish the analysis for comment.4 The RFA provides that an agency is not required to prepare and publish a regulatory flexibility analysis if the agency certifies that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FDIC hereby certifies pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the RFA.

Under regulations issued by the Small Business Administration, a “small entity” includes those firms in the “Finance and Insurance” sector whose size varies from $7.5 million or less in assets (mortgage and nonmortgage loan brokers) to $550 million or less in assets (commercial banks, savings institutions, credit unions, and others).5 The final rule imposes no new burden on prospective purchasers of assets sold by the FDIC. The requirement that a prospective purchaser complete and submit the Purchaser Eligibility Certification described above is a precondition to sale that is already required. Completion of the Purchaser Eligibility Certification does not require the use of professional skills or the preparation of special reports or records and should continue to have minimal economic impact on those individuals and entities that seek to purchase assets from the FDIC. Thus, any impact on small entities will not be substantial.

The Office of Management and Budget has determined that the final rule is not a major rule within the meaning of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), which provides for agencies to report rules to Congress and for Congress to review such rules.6 The reporting requirement is triggered in instances where the FDIC issues a final rule as defined by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).7 Because the FDIC is issuing a final rule as defined by the APA, the FDIC will file the reports required by the SBREFA.

Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 requires the Federal banking agencies to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000.8 The FDIC has sought to present the final rule in a simple and straightforward manner.

For the reasons stated in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation revises part 340 of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows:

History

On October 28, 2014, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace for IFR operations at Cando Municipal Airport, Cando, ND, creating additional controlled airspace at Cando Municipal Airport (79 FR 64151) Docket No. FAA-2014-0746. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Y dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this final rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A,B,C,D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace designated as a surface area within a 6.5-mile radius of Cando Municipal Airport, Cando, ND. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at Cando Municipal Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of IFR operations for SIAPs at the airport.

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes controlled airspace at Cando Municipal Airport, Cando, ND.

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

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

History

On November 26, 2014, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace at Ocean Reef Club Airport, Key Largo, FL, (79 FR 70478). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Y dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this final rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of Ocean Reef Club Airport, Key Largo, FL. Controlled airspace is required to support the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for Ocean Reef Club Airport.

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

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

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

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

History

On October 8, 2014, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace for SIAPs at Edgeley Municipal Airport, Edgeley, ND (79 FR 60793) Docket No. FAA-2014-0537. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Y dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this final rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace designated as a surface area within a 6.5-mile radius of Edgeley Municipal Airport, Edgeley, ND. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at Edgeley Municipal Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes controlled airspace at Edgeley Municipal Airport, Edgeley, ND.

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

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

History

On October 15, 2014, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace for the Cypress, TX, area, creating controlled airspace at Dry Creek Airport (79 FR 61790) Docket No. FAA-2014-0743. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. One anonymous favorable comment was submitted.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Y dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this final rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Dry Creek Airport, Cypress, TX, to accommodate new SIAPS developed at Dry Creek Airport. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes controlled airspace at Dry Creek Airport, Cypress, TX.

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

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

On November 26, 2014, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Class E airspace at Zephyrhills Municipal Airport, Zephyrhills, FL., (79 FR 70479). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Y dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this final rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of Zephyrhills Municipal Airport.

Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Zephyrhills Non-Directional Beacon (NDB) and cancellation of the NDB approach, and for continued safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. The geographic coordinates of the airport also are adjusted to be in concert with FAA's aeronautical database.

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

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

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

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

History

On November 26, 2014, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace at Eagles Nest Airport, West Creek, NJ, (79 FR 70480). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Y dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this final rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 9.5-mile radius of Eagles Nest Airport, West Creek, NJ. Controlled airspace is required to support the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for Eagles Nest Airport.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes controlled airspace at Eagles Nest Airport, West Creek, NJ.

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

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

On November 26, 2014, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace at JL Bar Ranch Airport, Sonora, TX, (79 FR 70482). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraphs 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this final rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A,B,C,D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This action amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of JL Bar Ranch Airport, Sonora, TX, to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at JL Bar Ranch Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes controlled airspace at JL Bar Ranch Airport, Sonora, TX.

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

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

History

The Baton Rouge Airport Air Traffic Control Tower has submitted a request to change the name and facility identifier of the Baton Rouge, LA, VORTAC (BTR), to Fighting Tiger VORTAC (LSU). The request is prompted by the distance of the VORTAC, which is located 8 miles outside the boundary of Baton Rouge Metropolitan Airport, Ryan Field. FAA Order 7350.9A, Location Identifiers, states in part that the navigation aid must be within the airport boundary in order to share the same identifier.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Y dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this final rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class C surface area at Baton Rouge Metropolitan Airport, Ryan Field, Baton Rouge, LA. The name of the Baton Rouge VORTAC navigation aid is changed to the Fighting Tiger VORTAC, and the facility identifier is changed from (BTR) to (LSU). This rule is meant to ensure pilots do not confuse instructions provided to them by Air Traffic Control.

This is an administrative change and does not affect the boundaries, altitudes, or operating requirements of the airspace, therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is unnecessary.

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

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

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

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

History

On October 16, 2014, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Class E airspace at Manchester Airport, Manchester, NH, (79 FR 62079). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. One anonymous, positive comment was received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6003 of FAA Order 7400.9Y dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this final rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class C surface area, at Manchester Airport, Manchester, NH. Airspace reconfiguration extending from the 5-mile radius of the airport to 8.5-miles northwest of the airport is necessary due to the development of the RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 17 approach, and for continued safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. Also, the geographic coordinates of Manchester Airport are adjusted to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database. An editorial change is made to correct the title of paragraph 6003 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, to read “Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to a Class C Surface area”.

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

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

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

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

The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone in navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 100 feet during the loading, transit, and arrival of the fireworks barge to the display location and until the start of the fireworks display. From 7 a.m. until 8 a.m. on July 4, 2015, the fireworks barge will be loading pyrotechnics off of Tahoe Keys Marina in South Lake Tahoe, CA in approximate position 38°56′05″ N., 120°00′09″ W. (NAD 83). From 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. on July 4, 2015, the loaded fireworks barge will transit from Tahoe Keys Marina to the launch site off of Tahoe City, CA in approximate position 39°10′09″ N., 120°08′16″ W. (NAD 83) where it will remain until the commencement of the fireworks display. Upon the commencement of the 15 minute fireworks display, scheduled to begin at 9:30 p.m. on July 4, 2015, the safety zone will increase in size to encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius 1,000 feet in approximate position 39°10′09″ N., 120°08′16″ W. (NAD 83) for the Fourth of July Fireworks, Tahoe City, CA in 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 15. This safety zone will be in effect from 7 a.m. until 10 p.m. on July 4, 2015.

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1191, unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring in the safety zone during all applicable effective dates and times, unless authorized to do so by the PATCOM. Additionally, each person who receives notice of a lawful order or direction issued by an official patrol vessel shall obey the order or direction. The PATCOM is empowered to forbid entry into and control the regulated area. The PATCOM shall be designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector San Francisco. The PATCOM may, upon request, allow the transit of commercial vessels through regulated areas when it is safe to do so.

This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1191 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 the safety zone and its enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners. If the Captain of the Port determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used 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 9, 2015, a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Safety Zone; 24 Mile Tampa Bay Marathon Swim; Tampa Bay; Tampa, FL was published in the Federal Register (80 FR 12365). Only 1 comment was received; however, the comment was provided under a separate event (Swim Around Lido Key) comment section. The comment stated concern for a safety zone encompassing the entire 24 mile swim route for the event. The safety zone will be a moving zone that will not impact any other areas of the race path while not in use by the swimmers during the race.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Any delay in the effective date of this rule would be contrary to the public interest because immediate action is needed to minimize potential hazards associated with a marathon swim with approximately 30 swimmers involved.

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

The purpose of the rule is to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters of the United States during the swimming event.

On April 25, 2015, Distance Matters, Inc. is sponsoring The 24 Mile Tampa Bay Marathon Swim. This open water swim event will be held on the waters of Tampa Bay, Tampa, Florida. Approximately 30 participants are anticipated to participate in the event. No spectator vessels are expected during the event.

This rule will establish a temporary moving safety zone that will encompass certain waters of Tampa Bay located in the vicinity of Tampa, Florida. The temporary moving safety zone will be enforced from 4 a.m. until 9 p.m. on April 25, 2015. The safety zone will establish a moving protective area around all safety vessels involved in the race. Persons and vessels, except those participating in the event, will be prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative.

Persons and vessels may request authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the enforcement areas by contacting the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg by telephone at (727) 824-7506, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the event area is granted by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the safety zone by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and/or on-scene designated representatives.

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 be enforced for seventeen hours; (2) although non-participant persons and vessels will not be able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without authorization from the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding areas during the enforcement period; (3) non-participant persons and vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone during the enforcement period if authorized by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg 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/or 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. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of non-participant vessels intending to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone described in this regulation during the respective enforcement period. For the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule involves establishing a temporary safety zone that will be enforced for 17 hours total. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

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

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule as it would be impracticable due to the short notice of the event. The Coast Guard received the information about the fireworks display on March 24, 2015, and it would be impracticable to accept comments before the fireworks display. Because of the dangers posed by the pyrotechnics used in this fireworks display, the safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of event participants, spectators, spectator craft, and other vessels transiting the event area.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register due to the short notice of the event.

The legal basis for the proposed rule is 33 U.S.C 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish safety zones.

Giants Enterprises will sponsor the Giants Enterprises Fireworks Display on May 22, 2015, near Pier 48 in San Francisco, CA in approximate position 37°46′40″ N, 122°22′58″ W (NAD83) as depicted in National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Chart 18650. From 11 a.m. until 8:50 p.m. on May 22, 2015, the fireworks barge will be loading pyrotechnics at Pier 50 in San Francisco, CA. From 8:50 p.m. to 9 p.m. on May 22, 2015 the loaded fireworks barge will transit from Pier 50 to the launch site near Pier 48 in approximate position 37°46′40″ N, 122°22′58″ W (NAD 83) where it will remain until the commencement of the fireworks display. A 10 minute fireworks display is scheduled to begin at 9:20 p.m. on May 22, 2015.

The fireworks display is meant for entertainment purposes. A restricted area around the fireworks barge is necessary to protect spectators, vessels, and other property from the hazards associated with pyrotechnics.

The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone in navigable waters around and under a fireworks barge within a radius of 100 feet during the loading, transit, and arrival of the fireworks barge to the display location and until the start of the fireworks display. The safety zone will increase in size and encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 700 feet in approximate position 37°46′40″ N, 122°22′58″ W (NAD 83) for the Giants Enterprises Fireworks Display. At the conclusion of the fireworks display the safety zone shall terminate.

The effect of the temporary safety zone will be to restrict navigation in the vicinity of the launch site until the conclusion of the scheduled display. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the restricted area. These regulations are needed to keep spectators and vessels away from the immediate vicinity of the launch site to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and transiting vessels.

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.

We expect the economic impact of this rule will not rise to the level of necessitating a full Regulatory Evaluation. The safety zone is limited in duration, and is limited to a narrowly tailored geographic area. In addition, although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant because the local waterway users will be notified via public Broadcast Notice to Mariners to ensure the safety zone will result in minimum impact. The entities most likely to be affected are waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities.

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

This rule may affect owners and operators of waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing. This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This safety zone would be activated, and thus subject to enforcement, for a limited duration. When the safety zone is activated, vessel traffic could pass safely around the safety zone. The maritime public will be advised in advance of this safety zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone of limited size and duration. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

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

On August 7, 2014, the President signed into law the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014 (“the Act,” Pub. L. 113-146, 128 Stat. 1754). Further technical revisions to the Act were made on September 26, 2014, when the President signed into law the Department of Veterans Affairs Expiring Authorities Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-175, 128 Stat. 1901, 1906), and on December 16, 2014, when the President signed into law the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L. 113-235, 128 Stat. 2568). Section 101 of the Act creates the Veterans Choice Program (“the Program”). Section 101 requires the Secretary to enter into agreements with identified eligible non-VA entities or providers to furnish hospital care and medical services to eligible veterans who elect to receive care under the Program. Sec. 101(a)(1)(A), Public Law 113-146, 128 Stat. 1754. Veterans are eligible for the Program if they meet eligibility criteria identified in the Act; one criterion for eligibility is that a veteran who meets initial eligibility standards (being enrolled as of August 1, 2014, or who qualifies based on being recently separated from the Armed Forces following service in a theater of combat operations) can participate in the Program if he or she resides more than 40 miles from the medical facility of the Department, including a community-based outpatient clinic, that is closest to the residence of the veteran. Sec. 101(b)(2)(B), Public Law 113-146, 128 Stat. 1754. The Act required VA to implement the Program through an interim final rule, and on November 5, 2014, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) published an interim final rulemaking implementing the Program by creating new regulations at 38 CFR 17.1500-17.1540. 79 FR 65571. Under § 17.1510(b)(2), veterans whose residence is more than 40 miles from the VA medical facility that is closest to the veteran's residence are eligible.

The Act states that a veteran must reside more than 40 miles from the medical facility of the Department that is closest to the residence of the veteran, but does not state how that distance should be calculated. When Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue—here the method for calculating distance—a Federal agency charged with implementing a statute is permitted to make a reasonable interpretation of that statute. See Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843-844 (1984). Accordingly, VA may, through rulemaking, define the methodology it will use to calculate such distances between a veteran's residence and the nearest VA medical facility.

The most common methodologies for calculating the distance between two places are by using a straight-line and by following the actual driving path between the two points. In the interim final rule published in November, VA determined that it would use the straight-line distance between the veteran's residence and the VA medical facility that is closest to the veteran's residence. 38 CFR 17.1510(e). We did so consistent with language in the Conference Report accompanying the final bill prior to its enactment. 79 FR 65577. The Conference Report stated: “In calculating the distance from a nearest VA medical facility, it is the Conferees' expectation that VA will use geodesic distance, or the shortest distance between two points.” H.R. Rpt. 113-564, p. 55. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line, so VA concluded that a veteran who is outside of a 40 mile radius of a VA medical facility would be eligible under this provision. 79 FR 65577.

VA also could have concluded that a driving distance calculation would have been a reasonable interpretation of the Act. Although the Conference Report language appeared to state the Conferees' expectation, other statements in the legislative history suggest Congress was not of one mind regarding how the 40 miles should be measured. For example, during the Senate floor debate on the final legislation just three days after the Conference Report was published, one of the bill's principal sponsors stated, “Mr. President, what we are talking about, really, is rather than get in a car or van and drive for 40 miles and hours and have that all reimbursed and paid for, a person will go to the local care provider.” See 160 Cong. Rec. S5207 (July 31, 2014). In addition, the overall purpose of the Act is to increase access to health care for veterans. As one of the Act's main sponsors in the House said during floor consideration of the bill, “This bill will expand access to non-VA care, making wait times shorter and increase convenience.” See 160 Cong. Rec. H7080 (July 30, 2014). Moreover, what affects a veteran's access when it comes to travel is how far he or she must actually travel, not the length of a straight-line route that cannot, practically speaking, be traversed. Distances are also more commonly understood in terms of travel upon actual paths, rather than along a straight line. For these reasons, the ordinary understanding of distance is also a reasonable one to adopt in this context.

This interpretation also makes sense in light of the exceptions Congress created for veterans residing 40 miles or less from the nearest VA medical facility. For example, under Sec. 101(b)(2)(D)(ii)(I), veterans are eligible if they must travel by air, boat, or ferry to reach each VA medical facility that is 40 miles or less from the residence of the veteran. Veterans also may be eligible under Sec. 101(b)(2)(D)(ii)(II) if they face an unusual or excessive burden in accessing each VA medical facility that is 40 miles or less from the residence of the veteran due to geographical challenges. Both of these criteria explicitly consider the actual means or path of travel a veteran must take. Consequently, it is reasonable for VA to make a similar consideration when determining whether or not a veteran's residence is more than 40 miles from the closest VA medical facility.

Finally, when two interpretations of an Act are permissible, the interpretation that is more beneficial to veterans is typically preferred.

We received many thoughtful comments on this topic in response to the interim final rule we published in November. More than a third of the comments we received related to how VA measures distance for purposes of determining eligibility, and many commenters specifically argued in favor of the use of driving distance to determine eligibility based on place of residence. Other commenters suggested similar changes, such as the use of driving time. These comments came from veterans as well as providers, and show a broad interest in expanding the Program to better facilitate health care options. By contrast, VA received no comments in support of the use of geodesic or straight-line distance. This indicated to us a need to revisit VA's method of measuring distance. After doing so, VA is issuing this new interim final rule adopting the use of driving distance when measuring the distance from a veteran's residence to the nearest VA medical facility. We believe based on the public comments we received in response to the interim final rule published in November that this change to a driving distance measure will have strong support from the public. We intend to address all of the comments prior to finalizing the rule but have decided to address this particular issue now.

Practical considerations also support promulgating a limited interim final rule addressing this issue now. The use of driving distance would result in more veterans being eligible than the use of straight-line distance, and as stated above, the general intent of the Act is to expand access to health care for veterans. Through the first 6 months of operating the Program, we have found this standard to be a limiting factor for participation in the Program. Actual utilization of the Program is well below projections made at the time of the interim final rule in November, and as a result, VA believes it is more likely to have additional resources remaining at the end of the Program's period of authorization unless we increase the population eligible to participate in the Program. While veterans could qualify for this Program under other eligibility criteria, 38 CFR 17.1510(b)(3)-(4), changing the methodology for calculating distance to driving distance rather than straight-line distance will allow more veterans to participate in the Program and receive care closer to home. VA also uses driving distance in the beneficiary travel program authorized by part 70 of title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This change would make the Program more consistent with another VA program that veterans know and use.

For these reasons, we are revising the method for calculating the 40 mile distance by modifying § 17.1510(e) to use the driving distance between the veteran's residence and the closest VA medical facility, rather than the straight-line distance. VA is also removing a parenthetical exception included in this paragraph that referred to a provision in the regulations pertaining to unusual or excessive burden in traveling to a VA medical facility. VA will calculate a veteran's driving distance using geographic information system (GIS) software.

VA is issuing this interim final rule under the same RIN as the initial rulemaking published on November 5, 2014. We intend to publish a single final rule that responds to the comments received from the November rulemaking and from this rulemaking. This will allow the public a total of 150 days (120 days following publication of the first interim final rule, and 30 days following publication of this interim final rule) to comment on this aspect of the Program.

This change will have residual effects on eligibility under § 17.1510(b)(3) and (b)(4), as these provisions are essentially exceptions that allow veterans who are not eligible under paragraph (b)(2) to be eligible to participate in the Choice Program. However, to the extent a veteran will now be eligible under paragraph (b)(2) when he or she would have qualified under paragraphs (b)(3) or (b)(4), there is no substantive change in that veteran's ability to participate in the Program or the benefits thereof. However, certain veterans who did not currently qualify under (b)(2), (b)(3), or (b)(4) may now qualify under (b)(2) as a result of this change.

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs finds under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) that there is good cause that advance notice and opportunity for public comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) that there is good cause to publish this rule with an immediate effective date. Section 101(n) of the Act authorized VA to implement the Program through an interim final rule and provided a deadline of no later than November 5, 2014, the date that is 90 days after the date of the enactment of the law. We do not interpret the expiration of the 90 day time period as diminishing or divesting VA of its authority to continue to implement the Program through an interim final rule. Section 101(n) of the Act clearly demonstrates Congress intended that VA act quickly in expanding access to non-VA care options.

This interim final rule changes the manner in which VA will calculate the distance requirement and will likely increase the number of veterans who are eligible for the program. Veterans who did not qualify under the straight-line methodology we previously articulated may qualify under the standard we are now establishing. In order for these veterans to have access to needed health care under the Program, it is essential that the revised driving distance requirement be made effective as soon as possible.

For the above reasons, the Secretary issues this rule as an interim final rule. However, VA will consider and address comments that are received within 30 days of the date this interim final rule is published in the Federal Register. As noted previously, the public has already had 120 days to comment on the methodology for calculating distance following the publication of the November rulemaking, and we believe the additional 30 days provided now will be sufficient to ensure the public has an opportunity to be heard on this issue.

Title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as revised by this interim final rulemaking, represents VA's implementation of its legal authority on this subject. Other than future amendments to this regulation or governing statutes, no contrary guidance or procedures are authorized. All existing or subsequent VA guidance must be read to conform with this rulemaking if possible or, if not possible, such guidance is superseded by this rulemaking.

This interim final rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a “significant regulatory action,” requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), unless OMB waives such review, as “any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.”

The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this regulatory action have been examined, and it has been determined that this is an economically significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VA's regulatory impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at http://www.regulations.gov, usually within 48 hours after the rulemaking document is published. Additionally, a copy of the rulemaking and its regulatory impact analysis are available on VA's Web site at http://www.va.gov/orpm/, by following the link for “VA Regulations Published From FY 2004 Through Fiscal Year to Date.”

This regulatory action is a major rule under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801-08, because it may result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. Although this regulatory action constitutes a major rule within the meaning of the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2), under 5 U.S.C. 808(2) it is not subject to the 60-day delay in effective date applicable to major rules under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(3) because the Secretary finds for the reasons stated above good cause that advance notice and public procedure for this rule are impractical, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1), VA will submit to the Comptroller General and to Congress a copy of this regulatory action and VA's Regulatory Impact Analysis.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any 1 year. This interim final rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.

The Secretary hereby certifies that this interim final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This interim final rule will not have a significant economic impact on participating eligible entities and providers who enter into agreements with VA. To the extent there is any such impact, it will result in increased business and revenue for them. We also do not believe there will be a significant economic impact on insurance companies, as claims will only be submitted for care that will otherwise have been received, whether such care was authorized under this Program or not. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers and titles for the programs affected by this document are as follows: 64.007, Blind Rehabilitation Centers; 64.008, Veterans Domiciliary Care; 64.009, Veterans Medical Care Benefits; 64.010, Veterans Nursing Home Care; 64.011, Veterans Dental Care; 64.012, Veterans Prescription Service; 64.013, Veterans Prosthetic Appliances; 64.014, Veterans State Domiciliary Care; 64.015, Veterans State Nursing Home Care; 64.016, Veterans State Hospital Care; 64.018, Sharing Specialized Medical Resources; 64.019, Veterans Rehabilitation Alcohol and Drug Dependence; 64.022, Veterans Home Based Primary Care; and 64.024, VA Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program.

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Jose D. Riojas, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on April 2, 2015, for publication.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, VA amends 38 CFR part 17 as follows:

This format revision will affect the “Identification of plan” section of 40 CFR part 52, as well as the format of the SIP materials that will be available for public inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA); the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center located at EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC, and the EPA Region 8 Office.

Each state has a SIP containing the control measures and strategies used to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and achieve certain other Clean Air Act (Act) requirements (e.g., visibility requirements, prevention of significant deterioration). The SIP is extensive, containing such elements as air pollution control regulations, emission inventories, monitoring network descriptions, attainment demonstrations, and enforcement mechanisms.

Each SIP revision submitted by Montana must be adopted at the state level after undergoing reasonable notice and public hearing. SIPs submitted to EPA to attain or maintain the NAAQS must include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, schedules and timetables for compliance.

EPA evaluates submitted SIPs to determine if they meet the Act's requirements. If a SIP meets the Act's requirements, EPA will approve the SIP. EPA's notice of approval is published in the Federal Register and the approval is then codified at 40 CFR part 52. Once EPA approves a SIP, it is enforceable by EPA and citizens in federal district court.

We do not reproduce in 40 CFR part 52 the full text of the Montana regulations that we have approved. Instead, we incorporate them be reference or IBR. We approve a given state regulation with a specific effective date and then refer the public to the location(s) of the full text version of the state regulation(s) should they want to know which measures are contained in a given SIP (see I.F., Where You Can Find a Copy of the SIP Compilation).

The SIP is a dynamic document which the state can revise as necessary to address the unique air pollution problems in the state. Therefore, EPA from time to time must take action on SIP revisions containing new and/or revised regulations.

On May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968), EPA announced revised procedures for IBR of federally approved SIPs. The procedures announced included: (1) A new process for IBR of material submitted by states into compilations and a process for updating those compilations on roughly an annual basis; (2) a revised mechanism for announcing EPA approval of revisions to an applicable SIP and updating both the compilations and the CFR; and, (3) a revised format for the “Identification of plan” sections for each applicable subpart to reflect these revised IBR procedures.

We have organized into a compilation the federally-approved regulations, source-specific requirements and nonregulatory provisions we have approved into the SIP. These compilations may be found at http://www.epa.gov/region8/air/sip.html. In addition, we maintain hard copies of the compilation which are updated periodically.

Each compilation contains three parts. Part one contains the state regulations that have been approved, part two contains the source-specific requirements that have been approved as part of the SIP (if any), and part three contains non-regulatory provisions that have been approved. Each compilation contains a table of identifying information for each regulation, each source-specific requirement, and each nonregulatory provision. The state effective dates in the tables indicate the date of the most recent revision to a particular approved regulation. The table of identifying information in the compilation corresponds to the table of contents published in 40 CFR part 52 for the state. The EPA Regional Offices have the primary responsibility for ensuring accuracy and updating the compilations.

EPA Region 8 developed and will maintain the compilation for Montana. An electronic copy of the compilation is contained at http://www.epa.gov/region8/air/sip.html. SIP Materials which are incorporated by reference into 40 CFR part 52 are also available for inspection at the following locations: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460 or the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

In order to better serve the public, EPA has revised the organization of the “Identification of plan” section in 40 CFR part 52 and included additional information to clarify the elements of the SIP.

The revised Identification of plan section for Montana contains five subsections:

1. Purpose and scope (see 40 CFR 52.1370(a));

2. Incorporation by reference (see 40 CFR 52.1370(b));

3. EPA-approved regulations (see 40 CFR 52.1370(c));

4. EPA-approved source-specific requirements (see 40 CFR 52.1370(d)); and,

5. EPA-approved nonregulatory provisions such as transportation control measures, statutory provisions, control strategies, monitoring networks, etc. (see 40 CFR 42.1370(e)).

All revisions to the applicable SIP are federally enforceable as of the effective date of EPA's approval of the respective revision. In general, SIP revisions become effective 30 to 60 days after publication of EPA's SIP approval action in the Federal Register. In specific cases, a SIP revision action may become effective less than 30 days or greater than 60 days after the Federal Register publication date. In order to determine the effective date of EPA's approval for a specific Montana SIP provision that is listed in 40 CFR 52.1370(c), (d), or (e), consult the volume and page of the Federal Register cited in 40 CFR 52.1370 for that particular provision.

To facilitate enforcement of previously approved SIP provisions and to provide a smooth transition to the new SIP processing system, we are retaining the original Identification of plan section (see 40 CFR 52.1397). This section previously appeared at 40 CFR 52.1370. After an initial two-year period, we will review our experience with the new table format and will decide whether to retain the original Identification of plan section (40 CFR 52.1397) for some further period.

This action constitutes a “housekeeping” exercise to reformat the codification of the EPA-approved Montana SIP.

EPA has determined that this action falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) which, upon a finding of “good cause” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation, and section 553(d)(3), which allows an agency to make a rule effective immediately (thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed effective date otherwise provided for in the APA). This action simply reformats the codification of provisions which are already in effect as a matter of law.

Under section 553 of the APA, an agency may find good cause where procedures are “impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Public comment is “unnecessary” and “contrary to the public interest” since the codification only reflects existing law. Likewise, there is no purpose served by delaying the effective date of this action.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and is therefore not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Because the agency has made a “good cause” finding that this action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute as indicated in this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or to sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). In addition, this action does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments or impose a significant intergovernmental mandate, as described in sections 203 and 204 of UMRA. This rule also 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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. This rule does not involve technical standards; thus the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. The rule also does not involve special consideration of environmental justice related issues as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). EPA's compliance with these statutes and Executive Orders for the underlying rules are discussed in previous actions taken on the state's rules.

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. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. This action simply codifies provisions which are already in effect as a matter of law in federal and approved state programs. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). As stated previously, EPA has made such a good cause finding and established an effective date of April 24, 2015. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This change to the Identification of plan for Montana is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

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

40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:

This document announces that, on April 9, 2015, OMB approved the information collection requirements for FCC Form 2100, Application for Media Bureau Audio and Video Service Authorization, Schedule F and 47 CFR 73.3700(b)(3), published at 79 FR 48442 on August 15, 2014. The OMB Control Number is 3060-0928. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the effective date of the requirements. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-0928, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via the Internet if you send them to [email protected].

To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on April 9, 2015, for the information collection requirements contained in the information collection 3060-0928.

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

No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-0928. The foregoing document is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.

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

OMB Control Number: 3060-0928.

OMB Approval Date: April 9, 2015.

OMB Expiration Date: April 30, 2018.

Title: FCC Form 2100, Application for Media Bureau Audio and Video Service Authorization, Schedule F (Formerly FCC 302-CA); 47 CFR 73.3572(h) and 47 CFR 73.3700.

Form No.: FCC Form 2100, Schedule F.

Respondents: Business or other for profit entities; Not for profit institutions; State, local or Tribal government.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 521 respondents; 521 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 2 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement; one-time reporting requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained in sections 154(i), 307, 308, 309 and 319 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 1,042 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $148,485.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

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

Needs and Uses: In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 12-118, released by the Commission on October 2, 2012, it is proposed that, following the completion of the incentive auction process, all channel sharing Class A stations will need to file FCC Form 302-CA (now renamed FCC Form 2100, Schedule F) for their shared channel facility. The NPRM adopts the following proposed information collection requirements:

47 CFR 73.3700—Channel sharing Class A stations will need to file FCC Form 302-CA (now renamed FCC Form 2100, Schedule F) for their shared channel facility.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MB Docket No. 14-253, adopted April 9, 2015, and released April 10, 2015. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. This document does not contain information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as follows:

This document announces that—based on the best available information recently obtained on the status of the fishery and information on past fishing effort—the adjusted non-tribal directed fishing harvest allocation for the third harvest allocation period from January 1, through June 30, 2015, of 5,084 mt will be reached and therefore directed fishing for Pacific sardine is being closed per the final rule establishing the 2014-2015 Pacific sardine fishing season (July 25, 2014, 79 FR 43269). In accordance with that rule, the initial directed harvest allocation for the third period of 6,252 mt was adjusted to 5,084 mt to account for excess harvest in the second harvest allocation period. Fishing vessels must cease fishing (be at shore and in the process of offloading) at or before the effective date of this closure. From the effectiveness of this closure, through June 30, 2015, Pacific sardine may be harvested only as part of either the live bait or tribal fishery or incidental to other fisheries, with the incidental harvest of Pacific sardine limited to 45-percent by weight of all fish caught during a trip.

NMFS manages the Pacific sardine fishery in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the Pacific coast (California, Oregon, and Washington) in accordance with the Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Annual specifications published in the Federal Register establish the allowable harvest levels (i.e. annual catch limit (ACL)/harvest guideline (HG)) for each Pacific sardine fishing season. If during any of the seasonal allocation periods the applicable directed harvest allocation is projected to be taken, and the fishery is closed, only incidental harvest is allowed. For the remainder of the period, any incidental Pacific sardine landings will be counted against that period's incidental set aside. In the event that an incidental set-aside is projected to be attained, all fisheries will be closed to the retention of Pacific sardine for the remainder of the period via appropriate rulemaking.

Under 50 CFR 660.509, if the total allocation or any specific apportionment levels for Pacific sardine are reached at any time, NMFS is required to close the Pacific sardine fishery via appropriate rulemaking and the fishery remains closed until it re-opens either per the allocation scheme or the beginning of the next fishing season. In accordance with § 660.509, the Regional Administrator shall publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the date of the closure of the directed fishery for Pacific sardine.

The above in-season harvest restrictions are not intended to affect the prosecution of the live bait or tribal portions of the Pacific sardine fishery.

This action is required by 50 CFR 660.509 and is exempt from Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866.

NMFS finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) for the closure of the directed harvest of Pacific sardine. For the reasons set forth below, notice and comment procedures are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. For the same reasons, NMFS also finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness for this action. This measure responds to the best available information and is necessary for the conservation and management of the Pacific sardine resource. A delay in effectiveness would cause the fishery to exceed the allocation for the directed fishery during the 2014-2015 fishing season, which is an important mechanism to prevent fishing in excess of the 2014-2105 annual catch limit. These seasonal harvest levels are important mechanisms in preventing overfishing and managing the fishery at optimum yield. The established directed and incidental harvest allocations are designed to allow fair and equitable opportunity to the resource by all sectors of the Pacific sardine fishery and to allow access to other profitable CPS fisheries, such as squid and Pacific mackerel. Many of the same fishermen who harvest Pacific sardine rely on these other fisheries for a significant portion of their income.