Federal Register Vol. 81, No.102,

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes); and Model A310 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 23, 2015 (80 FR 79745) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by reports of premature aging of certain passenger chemical oxygen generators that resulted in the generators failing to activate. The NPRM proposed to require an inspection to determine if certain passenger chemical oxygen generators are installed and replacement of affected passenger chemical oxygen generators. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the passenger chemical oxygen generator to activate and consequently not deliver oxygen during an emergency, possibly resulting in injury to airplane occupants.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2015-0118, dated June 24, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes); and Model A310 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-7528.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

In paragraph (i) of the proposed AD, we inadvertently referred to Airbus Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A35N006-14, including Appendix 01, dated December 10, 2014, as the appropriate source of service information for replacing 22 minute passenger chemical oxygen generators. We have corrected that error in paragraph (i) of this AD, which refers to Airbus AOT A35W008-14, dated December 18, 2014, including Appendix A, undated, as the appropriate source of service information for replacing 22 minute passenger chemical oxygen generators.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

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

We reviewed the following service information.

• Airbus AOT A35W008-14, dated December 18, 2014, including Appendix A, undated.

• B/E Aerospace Service Bulletin 117042-35-001, dated December 10, 2014.

This service information describes procedures to replace certain passenger chemical oxygen generators. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

We estimate that this AD affects 166 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it will take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD, and 1 work-hour per product for reporting. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $390 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $107,070, or $645 per product.

A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes, and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 7, 2015 (80 FR 38656) (“the NPRM”).

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-35, dated October 3, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes, and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-2457.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Bombardier and Endeavor Air requested that we exclude certain airplanes from the applicability. Bombardier stated that two airplanes, manufacturer serial numbers 15272 and 15279, should not be included in the applicability of the proposed AD, since these two airplanes had Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-36-016, Revision A, dated October 11, 2011, incorporated during production by the manufacturer. Therefore, Bombardier stated that those airplanes are not affected by the potential unsafe condition. Bombardier commented that proof of incorporation by Bombardier personnel can be provided to the FAA if required.

Endeavor Air stated that these airplanes accomplished Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-36-016, Revision A, dated October 11, 2011, prior to delivery to the operator.

We agree with the commenter's request for the reasons provided above. We have revised paragraph (c) of this AD accordingly.

Endeavor Air stated that the proposed AD would require affected operators to inspect for missing thermal protection blankets using Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-57-024 because “. . . some operators have inadvertently removed the existing insulation blanket from the upper wing box area while incorporating Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-36-016 to comply with FAA AD 2012-12-02. . . .”

Endeavor Air stated that the FAA did not provide any information why this may have occurred or that the problem is widespread. Endeavor Air also stated that Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-36-016 did not include instructions for removing the insulation blankets that were inadvertently removed by some operators. Endeavor Air therefore concluded that the operators or their maintenance provider did not correctly follow the instructions in Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-36-016. Endeavor Air stated that it does not agree that the incorrect accomplishment of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-36-016 by some operators should require all affected operators to perform the blanket inspections without a clear explanation why this problem could plausibly exist for all operators.

We agree that clarification is necessary. Bombardier has the service history and data showing a potential widespread problem, and TCCA concurred. Bombardier developed Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-57-024 with a different effectivity than that of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-36-016 in order to give credit to airplanes on which the original blankets were not removed when Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-36-016 was incorporated. We have added an option to paragraph (g) of this AD to allow operators to do a records review in lieu of the inspection.

Endeavor Air requested the we review the last sentence in paragraph (g)(2) of the proposed AD. Endeavor Air stated that because the corrective action is to restore an already approved configuration by reinstalling insulation blankets, it believes that the corrective action using “a method acceptable to the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office,” rather than “a method approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office,” would suffice.

We disagree with the commenter. The word “approved” is part of our standard language for describing methods of compliance in ADs. For a method to be “acceptable,” it must have FAA approval. We have not changed this AD is this regard.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

We reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-57-024, dated July 23, 2014. This service information describes procedures for an inspection of the insulation blankets in the upper wing box area to find if the blankets are installed, and replacement of missing insulation blankets. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

We estimate that this AD affects 470 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $159,800, or $340 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take up to 70 work-hours and require parts costing up to $665, for a cost of up to $6,615 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this action.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 13, 2016 (81 FR 1565) (“the NPRM”).

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0091, dated May 26, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. The MCAI states:

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

Fokker Services B.V. has issued Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-27-095, dated April 22, 2015. The service information describes procedures for a one-time inspection of the elevator tension control regulator for discrepancies, and corrective actions. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

We estimate that this AD affects 8 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it takes 1 work-hour per product to do the inspection in this AD, and 1 work-hour per product to report inspection findings. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $1,360, or $170 per product.

We have received no definitive data that will enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2015-03-06, Amendment 39-18102 (80 FR 8511, February 18, 2015) (“AD 2015-03-06”). AD 2015-03-06 applied to all Airbus Model A330-200, A330-200 Freighter, A330-300, A340-200, A340-300, A340-500, and A340-600 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 19, 2015 (80 FR 72398) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by reports of additional cracking of the MLG rib 6 aft bearing lugs. The NPRM proposed to continue to require repetitive inspections of the LH and RH wing MLG rib 6 aft bearing lugs (forward and aft) to detect any cracks on the two lugs at a more restrictive initial inspection threshold with a grace period for airplanes that have already exceeded the new threshold; and replacement, if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the MLG rib 6 aft bearing lugs, which could result in collapse of the MLG upon landing.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0120, dated June 26, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A330-200, A330-200 Freighter, A330-300, A340-200, A340-300, A340-500, and A340-600 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-4815.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to the comment.

American Airlines requested that we add a paragraph to the proposed AD that references new service information that would terminate the proposed repetitive inspections. The commenter stated that an Airbus retrofit information letter was published indicating that Airbus plans to release new service information that will terminate the mandatory repetitive inspections required by AD 2015-03-06.

We do not agree because the new service information is not yet released. In an AD, we cannot refer to service information that does not exist because doing so violates Office of the Federal Register (OFR) regulations for approval of materials incorporated by reference in rules. To allow operators to use service information issued after publication of an AD, either we must supersede the AD to reference specific service information, or operators must request approval to use the new service information as an alternative method of compliance with the AD under the provisions of paragraph (k) of this AD. We have not revised this AD in this regard.

We reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A330-57-3096, Revision 06, dated May 29, 2015. The service information describes procedures for detailed inspections to detect any cracking on the forward and aft lugs of the LH and RH wing MLG Rib 6. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

We estimate that this AD affects 101 airplanes of U.S. registry.

The actions required by AD 2015-03-06, and retained in this AD take about 2 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that were required by AD 2015-03-06 is $170 per product.

The new requirement (reduced compliance time) of this AD adds no additional economic burden.

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

Discussion

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2016-10, dated April 27, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes; Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes; Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes; and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The MCAI states:

We reviewed Bombardier Repair Engineering Order 670-54-51-034, “Repair for Missing or Loose/Protruding Fasteners in Upper and Lower Pylon Skins FS 1088-FS 1098, PBL 69.3 L & RHS,” dated March 7, 2016. The service information describes procedures for repair, including applicable related investigative and corrective actions.

We also reviewed Bombardier Temporary Revision 54-0007, dated March 8, 2016, to the CRJ700/900/1000 AMM. The service information describes procedures for a detailed visual inspection for protruding, loose, or missing fasteners of the left-hand and right-hand upper and lower engine pylons.

This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because loose or missing Hi-Lite fasteners on the upper and lower engine pylon structure common to the upper and lower pylon skin panels and engine thrust fitting could result in structural failure of the engine pylons. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-6892; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-057-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD based on those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this AD.

We estimate that this AD affects 531 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $45,135, or $85 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will take up to 32 work-hours for a cost of $2,720 per product, plus the cost of parts. We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this action.

According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all available costs in our cost estimate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

Section 2(c)(2)(E) of the CEA, as added by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, provides that a person for which there is a Federal regulatory agency, including a broker-dealer registered under Section 15(b) (except pursuant to paragraph (11) thereof) or 15C of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), shall not enter into or offer to enter into a retail forex transaction, except pursuant to a rule or regulation of a Federal regulatory agency allowing the transaction under such terms and conditions as the Federal regulatory agency shall prescribe.1

Section 2(c)(2)(E) of the CEA took effect on July 16, 2011. As of that date, broker-dealers, including broker-dealers also registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission as futures commission merchants, for which the Commission is the federal regulatory agency could no longer engage in retail forex transactions except pursuant to a rule adopted by the Commission.2

A retail forex transaction includes an agreement, contract, or transaction in foreign currency that is a contract of sale of a commodity for future delivery (or an option on such a contract) or an option (other than an option executed or traded on a national securities exchange registered pursuant to section 6(a) of the Exchange Act) that is offered to, or entered into with, a person that is not an eligible contract participant as defined in section 1(a)(18) of the CEA.3 Certain foreign exchange transactions are not “retail forex transactions” under the CEA, even where one of the counterparties is a person that is not an eligible contract participant. These transactions include: 4 (i) “spot forex transactions” where one currency is bought for another and the two currencies are exchanged within two days; 5 (ii) forward contracts that create an enforceable obligation to make or take delivery, provided that each counterparty has the ability to deliver and accept delivery in connection with its line of business; and (iii) options that are executed or traded on a national securities exchange registered pursuant to section 6(a) of the Exchange Act.

The term “eligible contract participant” is defined in Section 1a(18) of the CEA and, in general terms, comprises certain enumerated regulated persons, entities that meet a specified total asset test or an alternative monetary test coupled with a nonmonetary component, certain employee benefit plans, and certain government entities and individuals that meet defined thresholds.6 An individual is an eligible contract participant if the individual has aggregate amounts invested on a discretionary basis of more than $10 million or more than $5 million if such individual enters into the transaction to manage the risk associated with an asset owned or liability incurred, or reasonably likely to be owned or incurred by such individual.7

The Commission adopted Rule 15b12-1 (17 CFR 240.15b12-1) on a time-limited basis to permit a registered broker-dealer to engage in a retail forex business.8 The Commission is taking no further action, and pursuant to Rule 15b12-1(d), Rule 15b12-1 will expire and no longer be effective on July 31, 2016. Upon expiration of the rule on July 31, 2016, a broker-dealer registered pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Exchange Act, including an entity that is registered as both a broker-dealer and a futures commission merchant, shall be prohibited from offering or entering into a retail forex transaction pursuant to Section 2(c)(2)(E) of the CEA.

Background

The Form LM-30 final rule that is the subject of these corrections appeared in the Federal Register on October 26, 2011 (76 FR 66441); the final rule revised the Form LM-30, Labor Organization Officer and Employee Report, its instructions, and related provisions in the Department's regulations. The rule implemented section 202 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA), 29 U.S.C. 432, whose purpose is to require officers and employees of labor organizations to report specified financial transactions, arrangements, and holdings to effect public disclosure of any possible conflicts of interest with their duty to the labor organization and its members. The Form LM-30 and instructions are referenced in 29 CFR part 404. See 29 CFR 404.3 (Form of Annual Report).

These corrections also amend a final rule published in the Federal Register on October 10, 2003 (68 FR 58374), concerning labor organization annual reports. In that rule, the Department increased the filing threshold for Form LM-2 filers from $200,000 to $250,000 in gross annual receipts. See 68 FR 58383. However, the rule did not make a corresponding amendment to the text of 29 CFR 403.4(a)(1) (Simplified annual reports for smaller labor organizations), which permits smaller labor organizations to file the simplified Form LM-3 if they do not have gross annual receipts that meet the filing threshold for the Form LM-2.

Furthermore, the 2003 rule mandated electronic filing of the Form LM-2 for labor organizations with $250,000 or more in gross receipts. See 68 FR 58407. The instructions for the Form LM-2 were properly revised to reflect this requirement, but the rule did not update the instructions for the Form LM-15, Trusteeship Report, or the instructions for the Form LM-16, Terminal Trusteeship Report, both of which still contain references to the old paper format of the Form LM-2. Pursuant to Title III of the LMRDA and the Department's regulations at 29 CFR part 408, the instructions for the Forms LM-15 and LM-16 detail a parent organization's obligation to complete the Form LM-2 on behalf of a subordinate organization that it has placed in trusteeship.

Moreover, today's corrections fix an omission in Section III of the instructions for the Form LM-16, by making clear that the treasurer of the parent union, in addition to the president (or corresponding principal officers), is required to sign the subordinate union's Form LM-2 report, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 461(a). The Forms LM-16 and LM-16 and instructions are referenced in 29 CFR part 408. See 29 CFR 408.3 (Form of Initial Report) and 29 CFR 408.7 (Terminal Trusteeship Information Report).

Additionally, these amendments correct a technical error in the instructions for Form LM-2 Labor Organization Annual Report, Item 36 (Dues and Agency Fees), by clarifying an example concerning the reporting by a parent body and its subordinate for dues retained by the parent body from dues checkoff as payment for supplies purchased from the parent body by its subordinate. The Form LM-2 and instructions are referenced in 29 CFR part 403. See 29 CFR 403.3 (Form of Annual Financial Report—Detailed Report).

Finally, these corrections amend a final rule published in the Federal Register on February 5, 2013 (78 FR 8022), concerning technical amendments implementing Secretary's Order No. 02-2012 (77 FR 69378), which delegated appellate authority over certain federal sector labor organization officer election matters to the Administrative Review Board (ARB). That rule, in part, amended 29 CFR 458.65 by removing the references to “Assistant Secretary,” and adding in their place, the term “Director” in paragraphs (b) and (c). Upon review, the reference in paragraph (b) should have been replaced with a more general reference to the enforcement procedures outlined in 29 CFR 458.66 through 458.92, as final decisions on challenged elections may be made by different officials depending on the applicable procedure. In addition, the reference in paragraph (c) should have been replaced by the term “Administrative Review Board” instead of the term “Director.”

The rule also amended 29 CFR 458.70 by removing the references to “Assistant Secretary,” and adding, in their place, “Administrative Review Board” in two places. However, in the last sentence of 29 CFR 458.70, the rule did not replace the term “he,” which refers to the Assistant Secretary, with the more appropriate term “it,” for the ARB. Today's corrections make that change, consistent with the use of the term “it” in 29 CFR 458.91 and 458.93 in reference to the ARB, so that the sentence now reads as follow: “The Administrative Review Board may order the remedial action set forth in the stipulated agreement or take such other action as it deems appropriate.”

These amendments are necessary to correct the language in the Form LM-30 instructions concerning the scope of “the filer,” as encompassing the union official as well as his or her spouse and minor child.1 The Form LM-30 and the general instructions for Parts A, B, and C, as well as the language in Part II (Who Must File) of the instructions, make clear that “you” also refers to the official's spouse and minor child, not just the union official, and that this applies to the entire form. Further, this requirement derives directly from the statute. However, the specific instructions for Parts A and B simply refer to “you,” without mentioning spouse or minor child. This would not pose an issue, due to the aforementioned form and general instructions, but the instructions for Part C refer to “you, your spouse, or your minor child.” This difference in language may cause confusion as to whether the scope of Parts A and B includes the union official's spouse and minor children.

These amendments are also necessary to correct the language in 29 CFR 403.4(a)(1) to reflect the revised $250,000 filing threshold that was put in place pursuant to the October 2003 final rule on labor organization annual reports. As published, the final regulations did not update the filing threshold in 403.4(a)(1), which may prove to be misleading.

These amendments are also necessary to correct the language in the Form LM-15 and Form LM-16 instructions concerning a parent organization's obligation to file and sign the Form LM-2 annual report of a subordinate organization that it has placed in trusteeship. The instructions refer to the outdated paper format of the Form LM-2 and omit, in one section of the Form LM-16, the statutory requirement for the parent organization's treasurer to also sign the subordinate's Form LM-2. As published, these instructions may prove to be misleading.

Additionally, these amendments are necessary to correct an error in an example provided in the instructions for Form LM-2 Labor Organization Annual Report, Item 36 (Dues and Agency Fees). The instructions state that any amounts of dues checkoff retained by the parent or intermediate body other than per capita tax must be explained in Item 69 (Additional Information). As an example of such reporting by a parent body concerning dues checkoff retained for its subordinate body, the instructions state correctly that a parent body would explain in Item 69 (Additional Information) $500 retained from the dues checkoff as payment for supplies purchased from that body by the subordinate union. However, the example also states that the $500 should not be reported as a receipt or disbursement by either the parent or subordinate body. These amendments are necessary to correct the example, by clarifying that the $500 would not be reported by the subordinate body as a receipt or disbursement. The parent body, however, would report the $500 as a receipt, in this case in Item 39 (Sale of Supplies).

Finally, these amendments are necessary to correct the language in 29 CFR 458.65(b) to reflect the appropriate enforcement procedures and in 29 CFR 458.65(c) and 458.70 to make appropriate references for the ARB, pursuant to Secretary's Order No. 02-2012. As published, the final regulations erroneously replaced the term “Assistant Secretary” with the term “Director” in 29 CFR 458.65, which may prove to be misleading. In the last sentence of 29 CFR 458.70, the final regulations did not properly replace the term “he” with the term “it” in reference to the ARB, which may prove to be misleading.

1. Part A (Represented Employer) of the Form LM-30 instructions, at 5, is changed to read: Complete Part A if you, your spouse, or your minor child (1) held an interest in, (2) engaged in transactions or arrangements (including loans) with, or (3) derived income or other benefit of monetary value from, an employer whose employees your labor organization represents or is actively seeking to represent.

2. Part B (Business) (a) of the Form LM-30 instructions, at 7, is changed to read: Complete Part B if you, your spouse, or your minor child held an interest in or derived income or other benefit with monetary value, including reimbursed expenses, from a business (1) a substantial part of which consists of buying from, selling or leasing to, or otherwise dealing with the business of an employer whose employees your labor organization represents or is actively seeking to represent, or (2) any part of which consists of buying from or selling or leasing directly or indirectly to, or otherwise dealing with your labor organization or with a trust in which your labor organization is interested. Report payments received as director's fees, including reimbursed expenses.

3. In Section III (WHAT FORMS TO FILE) of the LM-15 instructions, at 2, the second paragraph of the subsection entitled “Labor Organization Annual Report” is changed to read: Any Form LM-2 filed on behalf of a trusteed organization must include the signatures of the trustees in addition to the signatures of the president and treasurer or corresponding principal officers of the organization which established the trusteeship. To add signature blocks to the Form LM-2 in the electronic filing system, click on the “Add Signature Block” button on the bottom of page 1. If paper filing is permitted, trustees should sign and date the Form LM-2 in the space below the officers' signatures in Items 70 and 71.

4. The last two sentences in Section III (WHAT FORMS TO FILE) of the LM-16 instructions, at 1, are changed to read: The Form LM-2 must contain the signatures of the trustees, in addition to the signatures of the president and treasurer or corresponding principal officers of the parent union. To add signature blocks to the Form LM-2 in the electronic filing system, click on the “Add Signature Block” button on the bottom of page 1. If paper filing is permitted, trustees should sign and date the Form LM-2 in the space below the officers' signatures in Items 70 and 71.

5. Amend instructions for Form LM-2 Labor Organization Annual Report, Item 36 (Dues and Agency Fees) to remove the term “either” in the third sentence of the second paragraph and adding “the reporting” in its place. The sentence would read as follows:

For reasons stated in the preamble, 29 CFR parts 403 and 458 are corrected by the following amendments:

The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 requires agencies to adjust the level of civil monetary penalties through an interim final rule in the Federal Register.

The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, Public Law 101-410, 104 Stat. 890, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Public Law 104-134, April 26, 1996, and further amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (the 2015 Act), Public Law 114-74, November 2, 2015 requires agencies to annually adjust the level of Civil Monetary Penalties (CMP) for inflation to improve their effectiveness and maintain their deterrent effect. The 2015 Act requires that not later than July 1, 2016, and not later than January 15 of every year thereafter, the head of each agency must adjust each CMP within its jurisdiction by the inflation adjustment described in the 2015 Act. The inflation adjustment must be determined by increasing the maximum CMP or the range of minimum and maximum CMPs, as applicable, for each CMP by the cost-of-living adjustment, rounded to the nearest multiple of $1. The cost-of-living adjustment is the percentage (if any) for each CMP by which the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the month of October preceding the date of the adjustment (January 15), exceeds the CPI for the month of October in the previous calendar year. The initial adjustment to a CMP may not exceed 150 percent of the corresponding level in effect on November 2, 2015.

Any increased penalties will only apply to violations which occur after the date on which the increase takes effect.

Each CMP subject to the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense has been adjusted in accordance with the 2015 Act. In compliance with the 2015 Act, the Department of Defense is amending its CMP penalty amounts.

On November 2, 2015, the President signed into law the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (the 2015 Act), which further amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (the Inflation Adjustment Act). The 2015 Act updates the process by which agencies adjust applicable civil monetary penalties for inflation to retain the deterrent effect of those penalties. Agencies are required to make an initial “catch-up” adjustment for civil monetary penalties with the new levels published in the Federal Register by July 1, 2016, to take effect no later than August 1, 2016. Thereafter, agencies are required to make annual inflationary adjustments, starting January 15, 2017, and each year following, based on Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance. Finally, each year in accordance with OMB Circular A-136, agencies will report in the Agency Financial Reports the status of adjustments to civil monetary penalties.

The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, Public Law 114-74, requires the Department of Defense to adjust applicable civil monetary penalties for inflation to improve the effectiveness and retain the deterrent effect of such penalties. The implementation of this rule will deter violations of law, encourage corrective action(s) of existing violations, and prevent waste, fraud, and abuse within the Department of Defense.

28 U.S.C. 2461 note, mandates that not later than July 1, 2016, and not later than January 15 of every year thereafter, the head of each agency (in this case the Secretary of Defense) must adjust for inflation each civil monetary penalty provided by law within the jurisdiction of the Federal agency (in this case the Department of Defense), except for any penalty (including any addition to tax and additional amount) under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 [26 U.S.C. 1 et seq.] or the Tariff Act of 1930 [19 U.S.C. 1202 et seq.], through an interim final rulemaking; and publish each such adjustment in the Federal Register.

Previously, the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 required agencies to adjust civil monetary penalty levels every four years. The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (the 2015 Act) Act updates this requirement with annual adjustments for inflation based on Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance.

In accordance with the 2015 Act, OMB will provide adjustment rate guidance no later than December 15, 2016, and no later than December 15 for each following year, to adjust for inflation in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers as of the most recent October. Agencies are required to publish annual inflation adjustments in the Federal Register no later than January 15, starting in 2017, and each subsequent year.

Agency heads are responsible for implementing this guidance and for submitting information to OMB annually on applicable civil monetary penalties through Agency Financial Reports in accordance with OMB Circular A-136.

There are no significant costs associated with the regulatory revisions that would impose any mandates on the Department of Defense, Federal, State or local governments, or the private sector. The Department of Defense anticipates that civil monetary penalty collections may increase in the future due to new penalty authorities and other changes in this rule. However, it is difficult to accurately predict the extent of any increase, if any, due to a variety of factors, such as budget and staff resources, the number and quality of civil penalty referrals or leads, and the length of time needed to investigate and resolve a case.

Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 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, distribute impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” because it does not: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy; a section 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 these Executive Orders.

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1532) requires agencies to assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule the mandates of which require spending in any year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In 2014, that threshold is approximately $141 million. This rule will not mandate any requirements for State, local, or tribal governments, nor will it affect private sector costs.

The Department of Defense certifies that this rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act because it would not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis.

The Department of Defense certifies that this rule does not trigger any reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. This interim final rule will not have a substantial effect on State and local governments.

Accordingly, 32 CFR part 269 is amended as follows:

Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), the owner of the Coleman Memorial Bridge (US 17), has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulation to perform repairs. VDOT needs to perform mechanical work that cannot be accomplished when the bridge is moveable. The bridge must be in the closed-to-navigation position to perform the maintenance. The bridge is a single bascule span and has a vertical clearance in the closed position of seven feet above mean high water. The York River is used by a variety of vessels including deep draft ocean-going vessels, U. S. government vessels, Small commercial fishing vessels, recreational vessels and tug and barge traffic. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with U. S. government and commercial waterway users.

Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. as follows: Sunday, May 22, 2016; Sunday, June 5, 2016 with an inclement weather date on Sunday, June 12, 2016; Sunday, June 19, 2016 with an inclement weather date on Sunday, June 26, 2016; and Sunday, July 10, 2016 with an inclement weather date on Sunday, July 17, 2016. At all other times, the bridge will operate in accordance with the operating regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.1025.

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

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

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary 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 because the Coast Guard received notice on March 1, 2016, that this event would take place. After receiving and fully reviewing the event information, circumstances and exact location, the Coast Guard determined that a safety zone is necessary to protect spectators, participants, and the personnel involved in the West Virginia Triathlon. It would be impracticable to complete the full NPRM process for this safety zone because it needs to be established by June, 19, 2016. The triathlon event has been advertised and the local community has prepared for the event. For the same reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), we find good cause for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Pittsburgh (COTP) has determined that a safety zone is needed on June 19, 2016. This rule is needed to protect personnel, spectators, and participants in navigable waters during the swimming portion of the West Virginia Triathlon.

This rule establishes a safety zone on June 19, 2016, from 6 a.m. until 10 a.m. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters on the Monongahela River from mile 97.5 to mile 100.5. The duration of the safety zone is intended to protect personnel, spectators, and participants while the swimming portion of the West Virginia Triathlon takes place. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive order related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety zone. This safety zone impacts a small portion of the waterway and for a limited duration of four hours. Vessel traffic will be informed about the safety zone through local notices to mariners. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notices to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to transit the zone.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 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.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

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.

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 have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, 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. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

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

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 (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 lasting four hours that will prohibit entry on all waters of the Monongahela River from mile 97.5 to mile 100.5 during the swimming portion of West Virginia Triathlon. It 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.

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.

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

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.

EPA is approving Maine's Chapter 162, “Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials,” submitted on July 1, 2014, to address EPA's Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials (EPA-453/R-08-004, September 2008). EPA is also approving Maine's revised Chapter 129, “Surface Coating Facilities,” submitted on August 18, 2015, to address EPA's CTG for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings (EPA-453/R-08-003, September 2008). These two Maine regulations implement RACT for the applicable facility operations. Lastly, EPA is approving Maine's negative declarations for two CTGs, Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings (EPA-453/R-08-006, September 2008) and Large Appliance Coatings (EPA-453/R-07-004, September 2007), which were submitted on April 23, 2013.

Maine is part of the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) under Section 184(a) of the CAA. Sections 182(b)(2) and 184 of the CAA compel states with moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas, as well as areas in the OTR, respectively, to submit a SIP revision requiring the implementation of RACT for sources covered by a CTG and for all major sources. A CTG is a document issued by EPA which establishes a “presumptive norm” for RACT for a specific VOC source category.

On October 9, 2007, EPA issued three CTGs, including the CTG for Large Appliance Coatings, which states were required to address by October 9, 2008 (72 FR 57215). Then on October 7, 2008, EPA issued four CTGs including Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings, Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials, and Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings, which states were required to address by October 7, 2009 (73 FR 58841).

On April 23, 2013, Maine submitted a SIP revision to EPA containing negative declarations for two CTG source categories: Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings and Large Appliance Coatings. Negative declarations include a statement that no sources subject to the requirement in question are located in the state; thus the state need not adopt a regulation based on a CTG that otherwise would apply to such sources. Then on July 1, 2014, Maine submitted a SIP revision to EPA containing a new regulation, Maine's Chapter 162, “Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials,” to address the CTG of the same name. Lastly, on August 18, 2015, Maine submitted revised Chapter 129, “Surface Coating Facilities,” to address EPA's Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings CTG.

Maine's new Chapter 162, “Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials,” is consistent with the recommendations for RACT found in EPA's CTG for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials. This new regulation is effective on July 30, 2013, and applies to fiberglass boat manufacturing operations that have, before controls, combined actual emissions of 5,400 pounds of VOC or more, per rolling 12-month period, from the use of gel coats, resins, and materials used to clean application equipment. Applicable facilities for which construction commenced prior to the effective date of the rule, must comply within 36 months after the effective date of the rule or upon initial startup, whichever is later, and facilities for which construction commenced on or after the effective date of the rule must comply upon their initial startup. Specifically, the rule applies to facilities that manufacture hulls or decks of boats from fiberglass but not to facilities that solely manufacture parts of boats such as hatches, seats, or lockers. Sources subject to the rule must meet specific VOC content limits for resin and gel coat operations such as open molding, mixing and cleaning application equipment. Facilities may meet these limits by implementing one of the following prescribed techniques: Use of low-VOC content materials; averaging the VOC content of materials to meet low-VOC content standards; and/or the installation and operation of pollution control devices. Maine's rule has the same VOC content limits as the CTG and also includes the appropriate recordkeeping, reporting, and testing requirements to ensure these emission limits are enforceable. The new regulation also specifies work practices to reduce VOC emissions during the application, storage, mixing, and conveyance of coatings, resins, and cleaning materials.

Maine's Chapter 129, “Surface Coating Facilities,” was previously approved by EPA on May 22, 2012 (77 FR 30216). The revised rule has been expanded to include the coating of plastic parts and products and to include additional coating categories for the coating of miscellaneous metal parts and products. The amendments provide for five major surface coating categories with numerous subcategories in each to further identify which coatings are subject to a specific VOC emission limit. The emissions limits may be achieved by using one or more of three compliance methods: Low solvent content coating technology; daily-weighted averaging of emission limitations; and installation and operation of an add-on air pollution control device with 95% capture and control efficiency. Maine's Chapter 129 also includes the appropriate recordkeeping, reporting, and testing requirements to ensure these emission limits are enforceable.

The new coating limits generally follow the recommendations in EPA's CTG for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coating, with the exception of three coating categories which, as explained below, does not render the rule as a whole less stringent than the rule previously approved by EPA into the Maine SIP. Maine adopted higher coating limits for Pleasure Craft Surface Coating than the CTG for Extreme High Gloss Topcoat, Other Substrate Antifoulant Coating, and Antifouling Sealer/Tie Coating. For these three categories, Maine reviewed industry data and determined that for purpose of functionality, cost, and VOC emissions, the alternative limits adopted for these three coating categories constitute RACT. Maine's approach is consistent with the EPA guidance memorandum, entitled “Control Technique Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Part Coatings—Industry Request for Reconsideration,” from Stephen Page to Air Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X, dated June 1, 2010. Although some of the miscellaneous metal parts and products specialty coatings limits in Maine's revised Chapter 129 are higher than the limits that had been previously approved into the Maine SIP, the more frequently used General One Component and General Multi Component coating limits for metal parts are lower than the previous SIP-approved general category limit for metal parts referred to as “All Other Coatings.” In addition, the revised rule's applicability is much broader. Thus, the revised rule satisfies the anti-back sliding requirements in Section 110(l) of the CAA because, the rule as whole will achieve an equal or greater amount of VOC reductions as compared to the rule previously approved into the SIP. This analysis is also consistent with the EPA guidance memorandum entitled “Approving SIP Revisions Addressing VOC RACT Requirements for Certain Coating Categories,” dated March 17, 2011.

Maine also submitted negative declarations for two CTGs: Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings and Large Appliance Coatings. Maine staff reviewed the inventory of sources for facilities with North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes that correspond to these source categories, interviewed its field and compliance staff, and searched telephone and business directories to determine if any sources meeting the applicability requirements of these two CTGs are located in Maine. After thoroughly reviewing all available information, Maine determined that there were no sources meeting the applicability thresholds for these two source categories.

As discussed above, Maine's new Chapter 162 and revised Chapter 129 are consistent with the relevant CTGs with the exception of certain limited provisions that do not result in greater emissions of VOCs than otherwise would be the case. Therefore, EPA has concluded that Maine has met the CAA RACT requirement for the Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials and the Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings CTG source categories. In addition, Maine's method for arriving at the negative declarations for EPA's Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings CTG and EPA's Large Appliance Coatings CTG is reasonable and EPA believes that the declarations are accurate. Therefore, EPA has concluded that Maine has also met the CAA RACT requirement for these two CTG source categories.

EPA is approving, and incorporating into the Maine SIP, Maine's new Chapter 162, “Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials,” and Maine's revised Chapter 129, “Surface Coating Facilities,” as meeting RACT for the Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing and the Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings CTG source categories, respectively. Additionally, EPA is approving Maine's negative declarations for two CTG source categories: Automobile and Light-duty Truck Assembly Coatings and Large Appliance Coatings.

The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective July 25, 2016 without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant adverse comments by June 27, 2016.

If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a notice withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. All parties interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on July 25, 2016 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Maine DEP regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 25, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

Therefore, 40 CFR part 52, chapter I is amended as follows:

Throughout this document, wherever “we”, “us” or “our” are used, we mean the EPA. Information is organized as follows:

Each State has a SIP containing the control measures and strategies used to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The SIP is extensive, containing such elements as air pollution control regulations, emission inventories, monitoring network, attainment demonstrations, and enforcement mechanisms.

Each state must formally adopt the control measures and strategies in the SIP after the public has had an opportunity to comment on them. They are then submitted to the EPA as SIP revisions upon which the EPA must formally act. Once these control measures and strategies are approved by the EPA, after notice and comment, they are incorporated into the federally approved SIP and are identified in part 52 (Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans), title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR part 52). The actual state regulations approved by the EPA are not reproduced in their entirety in 40 CFR part 52, but are “incorporated by reference” (IBR'd) which means that the EPA has approved a given state regulation with a specific effective date. This format allows both the EPA and the public to know which measures are contained in a given SIP and ensures that the state is enforcing the regulations. It also allows the EPA and the public to take enforcement action, should a state not enforce its SIP-approved regulations.

The SIP is a living document which the state can revise as necessary to address the unique air pollution problems in the state. Therefore, the EPA must, from time to time, take action on SIP revisions containing new or revised regulations in order to make them part of the SIP. On May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968), the EPA revised the procedures for IBR'ing federally-approved SIPs, as a result of consultations between the EPA and the Office of the Federal Register (OFR).

The EPA began the process of developing: (1) A revised SIP document for each state that would be IBR'd under the provisions of title 1 CFR part 51; (2) a revised mechanism for announcing the EPA's approval of revisions to an applicable SIP and updating both the IBR document and the CFR; and (3) a revised format of the “Identification of Plan” sections for each applicable subpart to reflect these revised IBR procedures. The description of the revised SIP document, IBR procedures, and “Identification of plan” format are discussed in further detail in the May 22, 1997, Federal Register document. We have taken action to revise the format for many state SIPs, see, e.g., 40 CFR 52.1470 and 52.1490 (“Identification of plan” and “Original identification of plan” sections for the State of Nevada SIP), and take the first step today towards revising the format of the California SIP.

Under the revised SIP format, the federally-approved regulations, source-specific requirements, and nonregulatory provisions (entirely or portions of) submitted by each state agency have been compiled by the EPA into a “SIP compilation.” The SIP compilation contains the updated regulations, source-specific requirements, and nonregulatory and quasi-regulatory provisions approved by the EPA through previous rulemaking actions in the Federal Register.

Each compilation contains three parts. Part one contains the regulations, part two contains the source-specific requirements that have been approved as part of the SIP, and part three contains nonregulatory and quasi-regulatory provisions that have been EPA-approved. Each part consists of a table or tables of identifying information for each SIP-approved regulation, each SIP-approved source-specific requirement, and each nonregulatory or quasi-regulatory SIP provision. The EPA Regional Offices have the primary responsibility for updating the compilations and ensuring their accuracy.

In this action, the EPA is publishing the tables summarizing the state statutes and state regulations approved into the applicable California SIP. Given the size of the California SIP, the EPA is revising the format of the California SIP in a phased manner. This first action relates only to state statutes and state regulations. Future actions in the series of rulemakings will revise the format of the local and regional California air district rules, local ordinances, source-specific requirements, nonregulatory provisions and quasi-regulatory measures approved by the EPA as part of the California SIP.

EPA Region IX developed and will maintain the compilation for California. A copy of the full text of California's regulatory SIP compilation will also be maintained at NARA.

In order to better serve the public, the EPA revised the organization of the “Identification of plan” section and included additional information to clarify the enforceable elements of the SIP. The revised Identification of plan section contains five subsections:

1. Purpose and scope.

2. Incorporation by reference.

3. EPA-approved regulations.

4. EPA-approved source-specific requirements.

5. EPA-approved nonregulatory and quasi-regulatory provisions such as air quality attainment plans, rate of progress plans, maintenance plans, monitoring networks, and small business assistance programs.

The California SIP is found in 40 CFR part 52 (“Approval and promulgation of implementation plans”), subpart F (“California”), section 52.220 (“Identification of plan”).1 In this action, we are revising the heading of section 52.220 to read, “Identification of plan—in part,” and adding an introductory paragraph to convey our division of the California “Identification of plan” section into two sections:

• Amended section 52.220, which will for the time being continue to function as it has in the past to list past and newly-approved air district rules, local ordinances, source-specific requirements, and nonregulatory and quasi-regulatory provisions and which will list state statutes and state regulations approved on or prior to April 1, 2016 but will not list new or amended state statutes or state regulations approved after April 1, 2016, and

• New section 52.220a (“Identification of plan—in part”), which will list the state statutes and state regulations approved as part of the California SIP after April 1, 2016.

Over time, as the EPA completes further rulemaking actions to convert the format of the California SIP, section 52.220a will include a growing number of air district rules, local ordinances, source-specific requirements, and nonregulatory and quasi-regulatory provisions. Once the conversion process is completed, the EPA will redesignate section 52.220a as 52.220 and rename it simply “Identification of plan.” At that point, all subsequent actions by the EPA to approve California SIP revisions will be promulgated using the new table format. The EPA does not intend to retain in subpart F the historical record of SIP approvals that have been promulgated in paragraph format once the conversion process is completed.

All revisions to the relevant portion of the applicable SIP (in this first instance, state statutes and state regulations) become federally enforceable as of the effective date of the revisions to paragraphs (c), (d), or (e) of the applicable “Identification of plan—in part” section found in subpart F of 40 CFR part 52.

Today's rule constitutes a “housekeeping” exercise to ensure that all revisions to the state programs that have occurred are accurately reflected in 40 CFR part 52. State SIP revisions are controlled by the EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 51. When the EPA receives a formal SIP revision request, the Agency must publish the proposed revision in the Federal Register and provide for public comment before approval.

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

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is reformatting the materials incorporated by reference in previous rulemakings on submittal of the California SIP and SIP revisions. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

This action does not impose additional requirements beyond those previously approved into the SIP and already imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

In issuing this rule, the EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, as required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996). The EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (63 FR 8859, March 15, 1998) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. The 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. Today's action simply codifies provisions which are already in effect as a matter of law in federal and approved state programs. 5 U.S.C. 802(2). As stated previously, the EPA has made such a good cause finding, including the reasons therefore, and established an effective of May 26, 2016. The 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. The change in format to the “Identification of plan” section for the State of California are not a `major rule' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

The EPA has also determined that the provisions of section 307(b)(1) of the 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 California 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, the EPA sees no need in this action to reopen the 60-day period for filing such petitions for judicial review for these “Identification of plan” reorganization actions for California.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:

On December 18, 2015, the Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization Act of 2015, Public Law 114-110, 129 Stat. 2228 (2015) (STB Reauthorization Act), was enacted into law, removing the Board from the United States Department of Transportation (DOT), where it had been administratively housed, and establishing it as an independent Federal agency. 49 U.S.C. 701 (2012); STB Reauthorization Act section 3. Because 49 CFR chapter X is titled “Surface Transportation Board, Department of Transportation,” the Board is revising it to “Surface Transportation Board” to reflect the agency's independent status.

As this change is not substantive, we find good cause to dispense with notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).1 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A)-(B).

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Because the Board has determined that notice and comment are not required under the APA for this rulemaking, the requirements of the RFA do not apply.

This final rule does not contain a new or amended information collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.

It is ordered:

1. The rule modifications set forth below are adopted as final rules.

2. This decision is effective on May 26, 2016.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 1321, the heading for title 49, chapter X, is revised to read as follows:

Section 10(j)(1) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1539(j)(1)) defines an experimental population as a population that has been authorized for release by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) or Secretary of the Interior, but only when, and at such times as, the population is wholly separate geographically from nonexperimental populations of the same species. The Secretary may authorize the release (and related transportation) of any experimental population (including eggs, propagules, or individuals) of a listed species outside of the species' current range if the Secretary determines that the release would “further the conservation of” the listed species (16 U.S.C. 1539(j)(2)(A)). Section 10(j)(2)(B) also requires that, before authorizing the release of an experimental population, the Secretary “identify” the experimental population by regulation and determine, based on the best available information, whether the experimental population is “essential to the continued existence” of the listed species (16 U.S.C. 1539(j)(2)(B)).

Section 10(j) of the ESA further provides that each member of an experimental population shall be treated as a threatened species under the ESA, with two exceptions that apply if an experimental population is determined to be not essential to the listed species' continued existence (i.e., is nonessential): (1) A nonessential experimental population (NEP) shall be treated as a species proposed for listing for purposes of section 7 of the ESA, except when the NEP occurs in an area within the National Wildlife Refuge System or the National Park System; and (2) critical habitat shall not be designated for a NEP. Treatment of an experimental population as “threatened” under the ESA enables the Secretary to issue regulations under the authority of section 4(d) of the ESA that he or she deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the species, which may be less restrictive than taking prohibitions that apply to endangered species under ESA section 9.

We have developed regulations providing NMFS's interpretation of, and procedures for, implementing ESA section 10(j). In developing our regulations, we reviewed the ESA, legislative history of the 1982 ESA amendments, existing U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) ESA section 10(j) regulations, public comments from the USFWS rulemaking to develop their ESA section 10(j) regulations, and public comments from our own recent experimental population designations; and consulted with USFWS staff. We then convened a group of NMFS staff with experience in ESA section 10(j) designations to draft our own 10(j) regulations.

We strove to maintain consistency between our regulations and the USFWS regulations as much as possible to provide for consistent implementation of ESA section 10(j) between the agencies. We are finalizing regulations that we believe are necessary to implement the statutory requirements in a manner appropriate for species under NMFS' jurisdiction, while also clarifying our interpretation of ESA section 10(j).

We published our proposed rule in the Federal Register for public comment, and after considering public comments, are issuing our final rule with four changes from the proposed rule (80 FR 45924; August 3, 2015). First, pertaining to listing at 50 CFR 222.502(c)(1), we removed the words “if appropriate” to describe what a listing regulation shall provide when an experimental population designation is made. Also regarding listing at 50 CFR 222.502(e), we added “local government entities” to the last sentence, which describes the entities that are part of the agreement when a regulation is promulgated for an experimental population. Regarding interagency cooperation at 50 CFR 222.504(a) and (b), we removed the language “designated for a listed species” because it was redundant, and because removing it makes the sentence simpler. This change is not intended to make our regulation functionally different than USFWS' corresponding regulation. Finally, also regarding interagency cooperation at 50 CFR 222.504, we added a paragraph (c), with the following language, to provide guidance and clarity in ESA section 7 consultations: “For purposes of section 7 of the Act, any consultation on a proposed Federal action that may affect both an experimental and a nonexperimental population of the same species should consider that species' experimental and nonexperimental populations to constitute a single listed species for the purposes of conducting the analyses under section 7 of the Act.”

We provide a summary of public comments and our responses below.

In our proposed regulations (80 FR 45924, August 3, 2015), we requested written comments from the public for 60 days, ending October 2, 2015, and we received nine comments. We received one request to extend the public comment period but did not do so, because we believe the 60-day comment period provided adequate time for comment. We considered all substantive information provided during the comment period and, where appropriate, incorporated explanations here and into the Background and Summary of Final Rule sections of this final rule.

We received seven substantive comments supporting the intent of our proposed regulations, agreeing with the overall rulemaking, and expressing appreciation for framing the NMFS ESA section 10(j) regulations in a manner that is consistent with FWS regulations. More specifically, most were very supportive of our: (1) Expansion of the stakeholder consultation and collaboration provision; and (2) our decision to explain the relationship between ESA sections 10(j) and 4(d). In addition to providing overall support for the proposed rule, the seven substantive commenters requested further clarification on several issues, and in some cases, requested specific language changes for the regulations. We summarize those comments and requests and provide our responses.

Comment 1: We received several comments related to proposed section 222.502(e). A few commenters requested that we clarify to what extent an experimental population designation is an “agreement” between interested parties. One commenter requested that we seek concurrence before a material change is made to an experimental population designation or ESA section 4(d) rule. One commenter requested that we specify that we would not proceed with a reintroduction if an interested party refuses to cooperate because of the determination regarding whether an experimental population is essential.

Response 1: The regulatory text at issue, as revised in this final rule, provides, “[a]ny regulation promulgated pursuant to this section shall, to the maximum extent practicable, represent an agreement between the National Marine Fisheries Service, the affected State and Federal agencies, tribal governments, local government entities, and persons holding any interest in land or water which may be affected by the establishment of an experimental population.” We strongly believe that working with affected parties is critical to the success of experimental population designations and our intent is to reach agreement with all interested parties on these designations. The phrase “to the maximum extent practicable” is necessary, however, because within the process of trying to reach agreement, there are many potential stakeholders with different interests and perspectives and it is conceivable that, while most stakeholders are in agreement, there may be others who are not.

We foresee that material changes to an ESA section 10(j) rule would be rare, however, it is possible that they could be needed in rare circumstances in response to changed circumstances that we did not foresee or consider at the time we developed the ESA section 10(j) rule. In this case, we would seek input from all interested parties and obtain an agreement, to the maximum extent practicable, to move forward with that change. After receiving comments from the interested parties on a potential material change, we will decide whether to move forward with the change. Additionally, because we must promulgate a regulation in order to make the designation, we would provide the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed rulemaking to amend the designation.

Regarding the commenter's request that we would not proceed with a reintroduction if an interested party refuses to cooperate because of a disagreement regarding the determination whether the population is essential, it is our intention, as noted above, to reach agreement with all parties. If consensus is not possible, we must still proceed to make a determination as to whether an experimental population is essential based upon the best available information.

Comment 2: A few commenters requested that we clarify whether we intend to include local governments as interested parties we will work with toward agreement in an experimental population designation, and one commenter suggested specific language for including local governments.

Response 2: As provided in our proposed regulations, local governmental entities are among the entities we will consult with in developing and implementing experimental population rules. For this final rule, we added “local government entities” to the last sentence in 50 CFR 222.502(e), which describes the entities that are part of the agreement when a regulation is promulgated for an experimental population.

Comment 3: Many commenters supported the expansion of the stakeholder consultation provision to include those persons holding an interest in water. In addition, commenters requested we place this expansion within the regulatory text, as the commenters asserted it was only stated in the preamble of the proposed rule. Some commenters wanted us to further describe what we meant by interest in water and to list specific entities that would participate as stakeholders.

Response 3: The provision expanding stakeholder consultation to include those persons holding an interest in water was in the proposed regulatory text. It is included in the final regulation (50 CFR 222.502(e)).

We decline to further define “interest in water.” As stated above, we strongly believe that consultations with affected parties are critical to the success of experimental population designations and our intent is to reach agreement with all interested parties on all aspects of these experimental population designations. We intend the universe of stakeholders in the consultation process to be inclusive and do not want to predefine who may be a stakeholder. The reason for this is that we consider “persons holding any interest in . . . water” to be broad and diverse, and to include, for example, those who have a legal, financial, cultural, aesthetic, or other interest.

Comment 4: One commenter asked us to elaborate on the interaction between this rule and our recent regulations modifying the definition of adverse modification and the procedures and standards used for critical habitat designation.

Response 4: We published a final rule to revise the Endangered Species Act (ESA) section 7(a)(2) regulatory definition of “destruction or adverse modification” that codifies the current policy and practice of the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service (81 FR 7214; February 11, 2016). We also published a final rule that amends portions of 50 CFR part 424 to clarify procedures for designating and revising critical habitat (81 FR 7413; February 11, 2016). This amendment made minor edits to the scope and purpose, added and removed some definitions, and clarified the criteria for designating critical habitat.

Our revisions to the procedures for designating and revising critical habitat are not expected to impact future ESA section 10(j) designations. Critical habitat cannot be designated for nonessential experimental populations. In the event that we identify critical habitat for an essential experimental population under ESA section 10(j), then these regulations would apply to the designation and resulting section 7 consultations.

Comment 5: One commenter requested that we include the same provision as USFWS related to analyses under ESA section 7 involving an experimental population, that we should consider any experimental and nonexperimental populations to constitute a single listed species for the purpose of conducting analyses under ESA section 7.

Response 5: We have added a provision related to analyses under ESA section 7 involving an experimental population to provide guidance and clarity. The final regulation (50 CFR 222.504(c)) states: “For purposes of section 7 of the Act, any consultation on a proposed Federal action that may affect both an experimental and a nonexperimental population of the same species should consider that species' experimental and nonexperimental populations to constitute a single listed species for the purposes of conducting the analyses under section 7 of the Act.” Though this language differs from USFWS' language, none of the differences are intended to cause our regulation to functionally differ from USFWS's corresponding regulation.

Comment 6: One commenter requested that we include the same provision as USFWS regarding clarification of how critical habitat would be designated for an area of overlap between a nonexperimental population and an experimental population.

Response 6: This concern would only apply to essential experimental populations, because we cannot designate critical habitat for nonessential populations. The USFWS language the commenter refers to is: “[i]n those situations where a portion or all of an essential experimental population overlaps with a natural population of the species during certain periods of the year, no critical habitat shall be designated for the area of overlap.” 50 CFR 17.81(f). We believe this language is unnecessary and could be misinterpreted to mean that there should be no critical habitat designated for either experimental or nonexperimental populations, which is not correct. Section 10(j) of the ESA states that populations will be recognized as experimental only when they are wholly separate geographically from nonexperimental populations. Thus, at times and locations where there is overlap, any critical habitat designation for the nonexperimental population will apply to the experimental population.

Comment 7: One commenter requested that we reconsider the 12-year expiration in the final rule designating Middle Columbia River steelhead trout as an experimental population.

Response 7: We have designated three experimental populations of salmonids based on the specific and unique circumstances for those populations. As we stated in the proposed regulations, we do not intend the final implementing regulations herein to require us to review or revise those existing designations. The implementing regulations we are finalizing in this rule do not alter the findings we made in our prior designations and rulemakings. Therefore, the existing designations will not change as a result of finalizing this rule.

With respect to future designations, we anticipate that designations having an expiration date will be rare. It is our intent that future experimental population designations will remain in place until the species is delisted. For further detail on delisting and revising experimental populations, see Response 11.

Comment 8: One commenter asked us to expand on the reasoning for removing “natural” as a qualifier from the term “current range” and asked whether this would increase or decrease areas where experimental populations could be established.

Response 8: ESA section 10(j)(2)(A) uses the phrase “outside the current range” rather than “outside the current natural range,” which is used in the USFWS regulations, to identify the geographic area in which an experimental population is authorized for release. There is no definition of “range,” “current range,” or “current natural range” in the ESA or 50 CFR parts 222 (NMFS ESA implementing regulations) or 424 (Joint NMFS/USFWS ESA implementing regulations). The USFWS ESA section 10(j) regulations at 50 CFR 17.80 through 17.83 also do not define “natural.” For this reason, including the word “natural” in the phrase “outside the current range” could be confusing. Removing the word “natural” eliminates this confusion. The term “current range” means the geographic area where the species is at the time of the designation. We do not anticipate that this will, as a general matter, increase or decrease areas where experimental populations could be established.

Comment 9: One commenter requested that we provide an example of when listing proposed location, migration, number of specimens to be released, as well as other criteria appropriate to identify experimental populations would not be appropriate to include in the rule designating the experimental population.

Response 9: In rules designating experimental populations, we will provide all of the best available information at that time for identifying the population. Over the course of implementing the rules, more specific information could emerge that was not available at the time of the rulemaking. For example, it is possible that not all of the information regarding proposed location, migration, number of specimens to be released, and other criteria appropriate to identify that experimental population would be available at the time of designating an experimental population.

For the final regulation we deleted the clause “if appropriate” because it appeared to apply to just the number of specimens released or to be released, whereas we intend that any means used to identify the experimental population would need to be appropriate to the specific scenario. The final regulation states: “. . . Appropriate means to identify the experimental population, including, but not limited to, its actual or proposed location; actual or anticipated migration; number of specimens released or to be released; and other criteria appropriate to identify the experimental population(s)” (50 CFR 222.502(c)(1)).”

Comment 10: One commenter asked us to clarify that hatchery stocks not currently listed under the ESA will not be treated as threatened or as a species proposed for listing if an experimental population is established in the same area.

Response 10: If an unlisted hatchery stock co-occurs in the same geographic area as an experimental population, that hatchery stock's status would not change and it would not be treated as threatened or proposed for listing simply because it co-occurs with an experimental population.

Comment 11: One commenter requested that we clarify that an experimental population will retain that designation until the donor species is delisted because of recovery, asserting that the change would remove ambiguity about whether NMFS would remove a designation under section 10(j) of the ESA if the donor species is delisted due to extinction. Another commenter asked us to explain our position on revising the designation of an experimental population.

Response 11: As we stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, NMFS' intent when designating an experimental population under ESA section 10(j) is that the population will retain that designation until the donor species is delisted, or until, for some unforeseen reason, the experimental population fails, for example, due to lack of donor stock or problems with implementation (80 FR 45924; August 3, 2015). A species (here, donor species) is delisted either because of extinction, recovery, or because the original data for classification was in error (50 CFR 424.11(d)). In any decision to change the donor species' status, we would consider the role of experimental populations in contributing to the conservation of the species. This also clarifies our intent with regard to revising experimental population designations. Our intent is that experimental populations retain their designations until the donor species is delisted. We do have the authority to revise experimental population designations and, while we cannot predict all future circumstances, at this time we do not anticipate making such revisions. However, NMFS has the authority to revise experimental population designations and may need to do so if there is a substantial change in the circumstances that led to determinations in the original experimental population designation. In that case, NMFS would need to revise the rule designating the experimental population, which would be subject to the same rulemaking procedures as the original experimental population designation.

Comment 12: We received several comments voicing concern that no experimental populations have been designated as essential even though some experimental populations have “carried the future of the species on their backs.” These commenters also urged us to include criteria, develop policy, or develop guidance on when an experimental population would be deemed essential.

Response 12: While we have not yet proposed designating any experimental population as essential, the statute and these regulations provide the potential for future opportunities to do so. We believe there is appropriate guidance laid out in the regulations, including the definition of “essential experimental population,” and statute to designate an experimental population that we determine to be an essential experimental population.

Comment 13: One commenter stated that non-listed populations should not be used as sources to establish new populations that would be afforded any ESA protection (threatened or proposed). The commenter wanted to see more explicit language addressing this issue.

Response 13: ESA section 10(j) authorizes us to establish experimental populations of endangered or threatened species. It does not allow us to designate populations of non-listed species as experimental populations under ESA section 10(j). Therefore we do not believe additional language pertaining to non-listed species is necessary.

Comment 14: One commenter asked that we remove provisions that the commenter believed encourage restrictions on movement of experimental populations and suggested alternative regulatory text. Specifically, the commenter asserted that the language at 50 CFR 222.502(c)(3), “Management restrictions, protective measures, or other special management concerns of that population, which may include, but are not limited to, measures to isolate and/or contain the experimental population designated in the regulation from nonexperimental populations,” would send a signal to the public that rules under section 10(j) of the ESA should always include specific measures to isolate/contain populations.

Response 14: We do not believe nor do we intend that our regulations encourage restrictions on movement of experimental populations. The language, “which may include, but are not limited to, measures to isolate and/or contain the experimental population designation,” is language from the USFWS regulations that provides an example. We are trying to keep our changes from the USFWS regulations to a minimum; and we do not feel it is necessary to eliminate the subject language. At the time of experimental population designation, we will develop management restrictions, protective measures, and other special management concerns that are specific to the subject experimental population.

In December 2004, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review pursuant to the Information Quality Act (Section 515 of Pub. L. 106-554), which was published in the Federal Register on January 14, 2005 (70 FR 2664). The Bulletin established minimum peer review standards, a transparent process for public disclosure of peer review planning, and opportunities for public participation with regard to certain types of information disseminated by the Federal Government. The peer review requirements of the OMB Bulletin apply to influential or highly influential scientific information disseminated on or after June 16, 2005. There are no documents supporting this rule that meet this criteria.

This rule has been determined to be not significant under E.O. 12866.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever a Federal agency is required to publish a notification of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare, and make available for public comment, a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation, Department of Commerce, certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy at the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. There were no comments received regarding the certification. The following discussion explains our rationale.

The final regulations clarify how we implement the provisions of section 10(j) of the ESA. The final regulations do not materially alter our current practices or expand our reach. We are the only entity that is directly affected by this final rule because we are the only entity that can designate experimental populations of threatened or endangered species under NMFS jurisdiction. No external entities, including any small businesses, small organizations, or small governments, will experience any economic impacts from this final rule. Therefore, the only potential effect on any external entities large or small would likely be positive, through reducing any uncertainty on the part of the public about our process for designating experimental populations by formalizing our practices and procedures.

In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.):

1. This rule will not “significantly or uniquely” affect small governments. We have determined and certify under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq.) that this rule will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local or State governments or private entities. A Small Government Agency Plan is not required. As explained above, small governments would not be affected because the regulation will not place additional requirements on any city, county, or other local municipalities.

2. This rule will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year (i.e., it is not a “significant regulatory action” under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act). This regulation would not impose any additional management or protection requirements on the States or other entities.

In accordance with E.O. 12630, this rule does not have significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required because this rulemaking: (1) Would not effectively compel a property owner to have the government physically invade property, and (2) would not deny all economically beneficial or productive use of the land or aquatic resources. This rulemaking would substantially advance a legitimate government interest (conservation and recovery of listed species) and would not present a barrier to all reasonable and expected beneficial use of private property.

In accordance with E.O. 13132, we have determined that this rule does not have federalism implications as that term is defined in E.O. 13132.

This rule will not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the applicable standards provided in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988. This rule clarifies how the Services will make designations under section 10(j) of the ESA: (1) Establishing and/or designating certain populations of species listed as endangered or threatened as experimental populations; (2) determining whether experimental populations are “essential” or “nonessential;” and (3) promulgating appropriate protective measures for experimental populations.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), require that Federal agencies obtain approval from OMB before collecting information from the public. A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. This rule does not include any new collections of information that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

We have analyzed this rule in accordance with the criteria of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4332(c)), the Council on Environmental Quality's Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and NOAA's Administrative Order regarding NEPA compliance (NAO 216-6 (May 20, 1999)).

We have determined that this rule is categorically excluded from NEPA documentation requirements, consistent with 40 CFR 1508.4. We have determined that this action satisfies the standards for reliance upon a categorical exclusion under NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6. Specifically, this action fits within the categorical exclusion for “policy directives, regulations and guidelines of an administrative, financial, legal, technical or procedural nature.” NAO 216-6, section 6.03c.3(i). This action would not trigger an exception precluding reliance on the categorical exclusion because it does not involve a geographic area with unique characteristics, is not the subject of public controversy based on potential environmental consequences, will not result in uncertain environmental impacts or unique or unknown risks, does not establish a precedent or decision in principle about future proposals, will not have significant cumulative impacts, and will not have any adverse effects upon endangered or threatened species or their habitats (Id. sec. 5.05c). As such, it is categorically excluded from the need to prepare an Environmental Assessment. In addition, we find that because this rule will not result in any effects to the physical environment, much less any adverse effects, there would be no need to prepare an Environmental Assessment even aside from consideration of the categorical exclusion. See, e.g., Oceana, Inc. v. Bryson, 940 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (N.D. Cal. April 12, 2013). Issuance of this rule does not alter the legal and regulatory status quo in such a way as to create any environmental effects. See, e.g., Humane Soc. of U.S. v. Johanns, 520 F. Supp. 2d. 8 (D.D.C. 2007).

E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, outlines the responsibilities of the Federal Government in matters affecting tribal interests. If we issue a regulation with tribal implications (defined as having 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), we must consult with those governments or the Federal Government must provide funds necessary to pay direct compliance costs incurred by tribal governments.

We invited all interested tribes to discuss the rule with us at their convenience should they choose to have a government-to-government consultation. We received no such request for government-to-government consultation.

E.O. 12898, Environmental Justice, requires that Federal actions address environmental justice in the decision-making process. This rule is not expected to have a disproportionately high effect on minority populations or low-income populations.

On May 18, 2001, the President issued E.O. 13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking any action that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation that (1) is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

This rule has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 and is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, and use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.

A complete list of all references cited in this rule is available upon request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 222, of chapter II, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as follows: