Federal Register Vol. 81, No.108,

Discussion

On November 13, 2014, at 79 FR 67382, the Federal Register published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Airbus Helicopters Model EC135P1, EC135P2, EC135P2+, EC135T1, EC135T2, and EC135T2+ helicopters. The NPRM proposed to require, before further flight, revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) of the applicable maintenance manual and the component history card or equivalent record by reducing the life limit for various parts and removing from service any part that has reached its life limit. The proposed requirements were intended to reduce the life limits of certain critical parts to prevent failure of a part and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

The NPRM was prompted by AD No. 2013-0178, dated August 7, 2013, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH (ECD) (now Airbus Helicopters) Model EC135P1, EC135P2, EC135P2+, EC135T1, EC135T2, EC135T2+, EC635T1, EC635P2+, and EC635T2+ helicopters. EASA advises that ECD has revised the airworthiness limitations for the EC135 and EC635 type design as published in the Master Servicing Manual (MSM) EC135 Chapter 04—ALS documents. Revision 14 of the MSM contains these new airworthiness limitations. EASA states that failure to comply with these limitations could result in an unsafe condition. For these reasons, EASA AD No. 2013-0178 requires revising the ALS to include the new life limits and replacing each part that has reached its life limit.

Since the NPRM was issued, the FAA Southwest Regional Office has relocated and a group email address has been established for requesting an FAA Alternative Method of Compliance for a helicopter of foreign design. We have updated this information throughout this Final Rule.

After our NPRM (79 FR 67382, November 13, 2014) was published, we received comments from three commenters.

Three commenters requested that the FAA not issue this AD. The commenters stated an AD to revise the airworthiness limitations of an aircraft manual is unnecessary because operators are required to use the most current revision of the manual.

We disagree. The FAA must issue an AD to mandate an airworthiness limitations revision, such as a new life limit, for all operators.

These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Germany and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Germany, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA, considered the comments received, and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

This AD does not apply to Airbus Helicopters Model EC635T1, P2+, or EC635T2+ helicopters because those helicopters are not type certificated in the U.S.

The airworthiness limitations and maintenance procedures for certain parts are contained in the Airworthiness Limitations section, Chapter 4, of Eurocopter's MSM EC135, dated December 1, 2001. Revision 14 of the MSM, dated July 1, 2012, establishes a life limit for certain part-numbered main rotor blades and reduces the life limits for swashplate and mixing lever gear unit parts.

We estimate that this AD affects 267 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour. We estimate 2 work-hours to update the maintenance manual for a total cost of $170 for each helicopter and $45,390 for the U.S. fleet.

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 helicopters identified in this rulemaking action.

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 DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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.

We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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

Airworthiness Directive 2016-08-18, Amendment 39-18495 (81 FR 26106, May 2, 2016), currently requires inspecting the fuel hose assembly and the turbocharger support assembly for proper clearance between them, inspecting each assembly for any sign of damage, and making any necessary repairs or replacements for certain Piper Aircraft, Inc. Model PA-31-350 airplanes.

As published, the wing locations of engine TIO-540-JJ2B and LTIO-540-J2B in table 1 of the Applicability, paragraph (c), section are incorrect. This document corrects that error.

Although no other part of the preamble or regulatory information has been corrected, we are publishing the entire rule in the Federal Register.

The effective date of this AD remains June 6, 2016.

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class D airspace, Class E airspace designated as surface areas, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Antlers Municipal Airport, Antlers, OK; El Reno Regional Airport, Oklahoma City, OK; Wiley Post Airport, Oklahoma City Wiley Post Airport, OK; and Shawnee Regional Airport, Shawnee, OK.

On March 11, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify Class D airspace, Class E airspace designated as surface areas, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Antlers Municipal Airport, Antlers, OK; El Reno Regional Airport, Oklahoma City, OK; Wiley Post Airport, Oklahoma City Wiley Post Airport, OK; and Shawnee Regional Airport, Shawnee, OK (81 FR 12845). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. Two comments were received.

One comment from Mr. Robert Pigott, Aeronautical Information Services, identified an error in the geographic coordinates for the Tilghman NDB and Antlers Municipal Airport, and identified that the name of Sundance Airport had been changed. The FAA agrees with the commenter and amends the geographic coordinates for Antlers Municipal Airport and the Tilghman NDB, as well as noting the name change to Sundance Airport.

Another comment was received from Carolyn Bloom, Aeronautical Information Services, advising that the geographic coordinates for Chandler Regional Airport had been updated after the NPRM was published, and that the name of University of Oklahoma Westheimer Airport had been changed. The FAA agrees with the commenter and amends the geographic coordinates for Chandler Regional Airport, and the name of the University of Oklahoma Westheimer Airport.

Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Antlers Municipal Airport, Antlers, OK; El Reno Regional Airport, Oklahoma City, OK; and Prague Municipal Airport, Shawnee, OK. After review, the FAA found that with the decommissioning of NDBs, cancellation of the NDB approaches, and implementation of area navigation (RNAV) instrument approaches the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at: Antlers Municipal Airport should be reduced from a 6.5-mile radius to 6.3 miles and the extension to the south of the airport from the 6.5-mile radius to 7.3 miles was no longer required; El Reno Regional Airport should be reduced from a 7.4-mile radius to 6.6 miles; and Prague Municipal Airport should be reduced from a 6.5-mile radius to 6.3 miles and the extension to the north of the airport from the 6.5-mile radius to 8.9 miles was no longer required in accordance with airspace requirements specified in FAA Joint Order 7400.2K. This action is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations under standard instrument approach procedures.

Additionally, this amendment notes the name change of the following airports: University of Oklahoma Westheimer Airport (formerly University of Oklahoma Westheimer Airpark), Norman, OK; El Reno Regional Airport (formerly El Reno Municipal Airpark); Sundance Airport (formerly Sundance Airpark), Oklahoma City, OK; David Jay Perry Airport, Goldsby, OK (formerly David J. Perry Airport, Norman, OK); Shawnee Regional Airport (formerly Shawnee Municipal Airport); and Chandler Regional Airport (formerly Chandler Municipal Airport). Geographic coordinates are also being updated for the following airports and navigation aids: Tinker AFB; El Reno Regional Airport; Wiley Post Airport; Antlers Municipal Airport; Sundance Airport; Seminole Municipal Airport; Prague Municipal Airport; Chandler Regional Airport; Tilghman NDB; Cushing Municipal Airport; Cushing NDB; and Cushing Regional Hospital Heliport.

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

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

This document clarifies the FAA's legal authority and policy for monitoring and approving requests to change the sponsorship of, and/or operational responsibility for, an airport from one public agency to another public agency when there is a dispute surrounding the proposed change.1 This document also describes the requirements for coordination between the FAA and state or local governments contemplating actions that may impact an airport's ownership, sponsorship, governance, or operations, to ensure that such actions are consistent with Federal requirements. Where the current sponsor/operator and the proposed new sponsor/operator agree to a change of sponsorship and/or operational control, Section IV of this document does not apply.

While state or local legislative action, or a judicial action, as the case may be, may seek to change an airport's ownership, sponsorship, governance, or operations, only the FAA has the authority to determine sponsor eligibility, approve and formally change airport sponsorship, and approve and issue a new Airport Operating Certificate pursuant to 14 CFR part 139. The FAA has a statutory obligation to ensure that an airport sponsor/operator is capable of assuming all grant assurances, safety compliance, and other Federal obligations, and has the expertise to operate the airport. Specifically, an airport sponsor/operator must meet the requirements set out in title 49 U.S.C. 44706, as implemented by 14 CFR part 139, for obtaining an Airport Operating Certificate, (if applicable) or in 49 U.S.C. 47102, as implemented by FAA Order 5100.38D (which includes provisions governing sponsor eligibility for Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funding) and/or 14 CFR part 158 (which governs the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) program pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 40117).

The FAA's obligation extends to reviewing sponsor/operator eligibility when state and local governments propose a change in the airport governance structure to ensure that there is no ambiguity regarding responsibility for Federal obligations and that any proposed changes will not impact compliance with Federal law. (In the event of a local or state dispute regarding sponsorship/operation of the airport, the FAA will apply the policy set out in Section IV below.) If any proposed changes give rise to such concerns by the FAA, the agency will work with state and/or local government(s) to resolve the concerns or, if the concerns cannot be addressed, deny the request.

Airport sponsors and operators are required to maintain compliance with Federal requirements at all times, and this document does not preclude the FAA from taking enforcement action if a sponsor or operator fails to fulfill its obligations, even if the FAA has approved the transfer.

Any state or local legislative body or public agency considering whether to take an action, such as drafting legislation, that would impact airport ownership, sponsorship, governance, or operations should (1) consult with and obtain the consent of the current sponsor/operator (absent extraordinary circumstances, such as substantial evidence of mismanagement on the part of the current sponsor/operator); 2 and (2) request technical assistance from the FAA about the interrelationship between Federal and state or local requirements, and seek the FAA's review and comment as early in the deliberative process as is practicable. A failure to consult may cause FAA to deny a proposed change to airport sponsorship and/or operating authority. In all cases, final decisions regarding the proposed change will be made by FAA's Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis.

In seeking technical assistance, representatives of the existing and/or proposed sponsors and operators must contact the appropriate Regional Office or Airport District Office (ADO) as early in the process as practicable. The Regional Office or ADO will inquire as to whether the proposed change is disputed, and the FAA will not act upon the proposed change until the dispute is resolved in accordance with Section IV below. In the absence of a dispute or upon final resolution of a dispute, the Regional Office or ADO will work with prospective airport sponsors and operators to ensure understanding of and compliance with the legal obligations associated with being an airport sponsor or operator (including those under part 139 as well as the AIP grant assurances and the PFC program requirements).

As soon as Regional Offices and ADOs become aware of a proposed change in ownership, sponsorship, governance, or operations, they must alert the FAA Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, which will advise the Office of Airport Safety and Standards and Office of Airport Planning and Programming. The Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis is responsible for approving all changes to an airport's ownership, sponsorship, governance, or operations. The Office of Airport Safety and Standards is responsible for administering 14 CFR part 139. The Regional Airport Safety and Standards Offices are responsible for approving changes to the part 139 Airport Certification Program Handbook. The Office of Airport Planning and Programming also plays a role in determining sponsor eligibility, and administers the AIP and PFC programs, as well as several associated programs and requirements.

The determination of whether to seek a new applicant for airport sponsorship is a state or local decision. The FAA expects that all disputes about whether to change airport sponsorship and/or operating authority will be resolved through a legally-binding agreement between the parties involved in the dispute or a final, non-reviewable legal decision. While parties should seek technical assistance from the FAA as early as practicable, parties are encouraged to wait until a dispute has been resolved before submitting an application to the FAA seeking the agency's approval of a change in sponsorship of, and/or operational responsibility for, an airport. In matters in which a proposed change is contested by a current sponsor or operator, the FAA will not act on a part 139 application or a change of airport sponsorship and/or operating authority until the dispute is definitively resolved to the satisfaction of the FAA. Resolution may be demonstrated by issuance of a final, non-reviewable judicial decision requiring such a change, by the issuance of a consent letter between the existing airport sponsor and/or operator and the proposed new sponsor and/or operator, or by other legally definitive means deemed acceptable to the FAA.

The FAA will accept an application for a change in airport sponsorship/operation only upon a legally definitive resolution of a dispute. At that time, the FAA will evaluate whether an application is complete and whether the proposed airport sponsor/operator is capable of assuming all grant assurances, safety compliance, and other Federal obligations, and has the expertise to operate the airport as required by law.

In circumstances in which a change in sponsorship or operation of an airport is approved and effectuated, the new airport sponsor and/or operator should reimburse the prior sponsor for investments that have been made by the prior sponsor of the airport but have not been fully recouped at the time of the change in airport sponsorship. Any such reimbursements must be consistent with the FAA's Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue, 64 FR 7696 (Feb. 16, 1999).

The technical corrections in this rulemaking affect offshore operators, lessees, pipeline right-of-way holders, and permittees. The corrections are necessary to reflect accurate regulatory citations, add or change a few words for clarification, and revise section numbering. Also, regulatory text that was inadvertently removed in a 2013 regulatory update is being re-inserted where it belongs. These corrections will make the regulations easier to read, understand, and comprehend, but will not change the purpose, scope or effect of the regulations.

Because this rule makes no substantive change in any rule or requirement, BSEE for good cause finds that notice and public comment are unnecessary pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).

This rulemaking will correct regulations in 30 CFR parts 203, 250, 251, 252, 254, 256, 280, 282, 290, and 291 to reflect the changes discussed below. The following table shows the current regulatory citation and what changes were made.

E.O. 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this final rule is not significant because it will not raise novel legal or policy issues.

E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The Executive Order (E.O.) directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. This rulemaking is consistent with the principles of E.O. 13563.

The Department of the Interior (DOI) certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

The Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and 10 Regional Fairness Boards were established to receive comments from small businesses about Federal agency enforcement actions. The Ombudsman will annually evaluate the enforcement activities and rate each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on the actions of BSEE, call 1-888-734-3247. You may comment to the Small Business Administration without fear of retaliation. Allegations of discrimination/retaliation filed with the Small Business Administration will be investigated for appropriate action.

This final rule is not a major rule under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)). This rule:

a. Will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.

b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.

c. Will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. The requirements will apply to all entities operating on the OCS.

This final rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The final rule will not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) is not required.

Under the criteria in E.O. 12630, this final rule does not have significant takings implications. The rulemaking is not a governmental action capable of interfering with constitutionally protected property rights. A Takings Implication Assessment is not required.

Under the criteria in E.O. 13132, this final rule does not have federalism implications. This final rule will not substantially and directly affect the relationship between the Federal and State governments. To the extent that State and local governments have a role in OCS activities, this final rule will not affect that role. A Federalism Assessment is not required.

This final rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. Specifically, this rule:

(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and

(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.

Under the criteria in E.O. 13175 and DOI's Policy on Consultation with Indian Tribes (Secretarial Order 3317, Amendment 2, December 31, 2013), we evaluated this final rule and determined that it has no substantial direct effects on federally recognized Indian tribes.

This final rule does not contain new information collection requirements, and a submission under the PRA is not required. Therefore, an information collection request is not being submitted to OMB for review and approval under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

This final rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. BSEE has evaluated this rule under the criteria of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Department's regulations implementing NEPA. This rule meets the criteria set forth at 43 CFR 46.210(i) for a Departmental Categorical Exclusion in that this rule is “of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature. . . .” Further, BSEE has analyzed this rule to determine if it meets any of the extraordinary circumstances that would require an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement as set forth in 43 CFR 46.215 and has concluded that this rule does not meet any of the criteria for extraordinary circumstances.

In developing this final rule, we did not conduct or use a study, experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Data Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554, app. C § 515, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A-153-154).

This final rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in E.O. 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) amends 30 CFR parts 203, 250, 251, 252, 254, 256, 280, 282, 290, and 291 as follows:

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

On February 25, 2016, the Coast Guard published an NPRM in the Federal Register titled Special Local Regulations and Safety Zone; Recurring Marine Events Held in the Coast Guard Sector Northern New England Captain of the Port Zone, 81 FR 9380, proposing to update SLR and safety zones. There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action. No public comments or request for a public meeting were received during the NPRM process. Swim events, fireworks displays, and marine events are held on an annual recurring basis on the navigable waters within the Coast Guard Sector Northern New England COTP Zone. In the past, the Coast Guard has established special local regulations, regulated areas, and safety zones for these annual recurring events on a case by case basis to ensure the protection of the maritime public and event participants from the hazards associated with these events. In the past year, events were assessed for their likelihood to recur in subsequent years or to discontinue, and were added to or deleted from the tables accordingly. In addition, minor changes to existing events were made to ensure the accuracy of event details.

The purpose of this rulemaking is to reduce administrative overhead, expedite public notification of events, and ensure the protection of the maritime public during marine events in the Sector Northern New England area.

We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. The comment period for the NPRM associated with the Special Local Regulations and Safety Zone; Recurring Marine Events Held in the Coast Guard Sector Northern New England Captain of the Port Zone expired on April 25, 2016. The first events are scheduled to occur June 18, 2016. Thus, there is now insufficient time for a 30 day effective period before the need to enforce this safety zone and SLR. Delaying the enforcement of this safety zone and SLR to allow a 30 day effective period will be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to fulfill its mission to keep the ports and waterways safe.

The Coast Guard issues this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. This rule will update the tables of annual recurring events in the existing regulation for the Coast Guard Sector Northern New England COTP Zone. The tables provide the event name, sponsor, and type, as well as approximate times, dates, and locations of the events. Advanced public notification of specific times, dates, regulated areas, and enforcement periods for each event will be provided through appropriate means, which may include, the Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and a Notice of Enforcement published in the Federal Register at least 30 days prior to the event date. If an event does not have a date and time listed in this regulation, then the precise dates and times of the enforcement period for that event will be announced through a Local Notice to Mariners and, if time permits, a Notice of Enforcement in the Federal Register.

As noted above, we received no comments to the NPRM published February 25, 2016. The single change from the NPRM is the addition of dates to the Lake Champlain Dragon Boat Race held in Burlington, VT. The Coast Guard has added two dates in July, as well as an additional date in August to the table of Special Local regulations in 33 CFR 100.120

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders Executive Orders) 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, the final rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

We expect the economic impact of this rule to be minimal. Although this regulation may have some impact on the public, the potential impact will be minimized for the following reason: the Coast Guard is only modifying an existing regulation to account for new information.

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 regulated waters 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 would 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 would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. 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 would not result in such an 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 made a preliminary determination 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 water activities including swimming events and fireworks displays. They maybe categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g)(Safety Zones) and (34)(h)(Special Local Regulations) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this is 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 parts 100 and 165 as follows:

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the Route-197-Bridge, that once required draw operations in 33 CFR 117.525(b) was removed from the Kennebec River and replaced with a fixed bridge in 2015. Therefore, the regulation is no longer applicable and should be removed from publication. It is unnecessary to publish an NPRM because this regulatory action does not place any restrictions on mariners but rather removes restrictions that have no further use or value.

We are issuing this rule under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective in less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. The bridge has been fixed bridge for 4 months and this rule merely requires an administrative change to the Code of Federal Regulations, in order to omit a regulatory requirement that is no longer applicable or necessary. The modification has already taken place and the removal of the regulation will not affect mariners currently operating on this waterway. Therefore, a delayed effective date is unnecessary.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499.

The Route-197 Bridge (Maine Kennebec Bridge) was removed and replaced with a fixed bridge in 2015. The elimination of this drawbridge necessitates the removal of the drawbridge operation regulation, 33 CFR 117.525, that pertains to the former drawbridge.

The Coast Guard is changing the regulation in 33 CFR 117.525 by removing restrictions and the regulatory burden related to the draw operations for this bridge that is no longer a drawbridge. The change removes the paragraph (b) of the regulation governing the Route-197 Bridge since the bridge has been replace with a fixed bridge. This change does not affect waterway or land traffic. This change does not affect nor does it alter the operating schedule in 33 CFR 117.525 that govern the remaining active drawbridge on the Kennebec River.

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

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 fact that the bridge was removed from the waterway and no longer operates as a drawbridge. The removal of the operation schedule from 33 CFR part 117 will have no effect on the movement of waterway or land traffic.

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

For the reasons stated in section V.A above this final rule would 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, above.

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

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

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it 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.

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 guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. This action is categorically excluded from further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.

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

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 117 as follows:

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

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

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

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.935, Safety Zone, Milwaukee Harbor, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, at the following times for the following events:

(1) Pridefest fireworks display on June 11, 2016 from 9:15 p.m. until 10:15 p.m.;

(2) Polish Fest fireworks display on June 18, 2016 from 10:15 p.m. until 11:15 p.m.;

(3) Summerfest fireworks display on June 29, 2016 from 9:15 p.m. until 10:15 p.m.;

(4) Festa Italiana fireworks display on each day of July 22, 23, and 24, 2016 from 9:45 p.m. until 10:30 p.m.;

(5) German Fest fireworks display on each day of July 29 and 30, 2016 from 10:15 p.m. until 11:15 p.m.;

(6) Irish Fest fireworks display on August 21, 2016 from 9:45 p.m. until 10:30 p.m.;

(7) Indian Summer fireworks display on September 10, 2016 from 9:45 p.m. until 10:45 p.m.

This safety zone will encompass the waters of Lake Michigan within Milwaukee Harbor including the Harbor Island Lagoon enclosed by a line connecting the following points: Beginning at 43°02′00″ N., 087°53′53″ W.; then south to 43°01′44″ N., 087°53′53″ W.; then east to 43°01′44″ N., 087°53′25″ W.; then north to 43°02′00″ N., 087°53′25″ W.; then west to the point of origin (NAD 83). As specified in 33 CFR 165.935, all vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated representative to enter, move within, or exit the safety zone when it is enforced. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone must obey all lawful orders or directions of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated representative.

This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.935, Safety Zone; Milwaukee Harbor, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard plans to provide the maritime community with advance notification for the enforcement of this zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a representative may be contacted via Channel 16, VHF-FM.

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 NPRM with respect to this rule because it would be impractical and contrary to the public interest. The event sponsor was late in submitting the marine event application. This late submission did not give the Coast Guard enough time to publish an NPRM and receive comments, making that impracticable and contrary to the public interest in immediate action to ensure the safety of the event participants, patrol vessels, spectator craft and other vessels transiting the event area.

For the same reasons, we are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port New York (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with swim events occurring in high traffic areas of the Upper New York Harbor on July 16, 2016 will be a safety concern for anyone within a 100-yard radius of swimmers. This rule is needed to protect maritime public and event participants from the hazards associated with the swim event until the conclusion of the event.

This rule establishes a safety zone from at 7:00 a.m. until 9:30 a.m. on July 16, 2016. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 100 yards of participating swimmers for the Lady Liberty Sharkfest Swim. The duration of the zone is intended to protect maritime public and event participants from the hazards associated with swim events taking place in a high vessel traffic area. 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, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which will impact a small designated area of the Upper New York Harbor in vicinity of Ellis and Liberty Islands for 2.5 hours and during a time of day when vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter 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 an 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 approximately 2.5 hours that will prohibit entry within 100 yards of participating swimmers for the Lady Liberty Sharkfest Swim. 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 will be 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:

I. Table of Abbreviations AOR Area of Responsibility CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port 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

On April 8, 2016, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled Safety Zones; Sector Upper Mississippi River Annual and Recurring Safety Zones Update (81 FR 20592). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this fireworks display. During the comment period that ended May 9, 2016, we received information from event sponsors providing updated locations for 2 of the events listed in the NPRM. Therefore, we are requesting comments through this interim rule related to these two location changes before issuing a final rule. These changes are discussed further below.

We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Though we are not providing a full 30 day notice period, the Coast Guard did provide notice and opportunity to comment through the NPRM process and is now providing five days notice before the first updated recurring safety zone enforcement is required the weekend of June 11-12. It is impracticable to provide a full 30-days notice because this rule must be effective June 11, 2016.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Upper Mississippi River has determined that potential hazards associated with the recurring events will cause safety concerns. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of vessels and the navigable waters in the safety zones, before, during, and after the scheduled events.

As noted above, during the comment period for our NPRM that published April 8, 2016, we received information from event sponsors updating the location for two events. This information lead to the need to propose changes to the location details for two of the recurring safety zones listed in the NPRM. Therefore, there are two new proposed changes to the regulatory text of this rule that are different from the proposed rule in the NPRM. The first corrects the location of event number 14; Prairie du Chien Area Chamber Fireworks, taking place annually on one day during the second weekend of July. The location listed in the proposed rule was Upper Mississippi River mile marker 633.8 to 634.2; the correct location for this event is Upper Mississippi River mile marker 635.2 to 635.7. The second corrects the location of event number 31; Hermann 4th of July event taking place one day over the 4th of July weekend. The location listed in the proposed rule was Missouri River mile marker 99.0 to 98.0; the correct location for this event is Missouri River mile marker 97.0 to 98.0.

All other changes, removals, and additions proposed under the NPRM remain the same as listed in the proposed rule. This interim rule establishes recurring safety zones to restrict vessel transit into and through specified areas to protect spectators, mariners, and other persons and property from potential hazards presented during certain events taking place in Sector Upper Mississippi River's AOR. This interim rule amends, updates, and replaces Table 2 in 33 CFR 165.801, and requests comments on two additional changes as discussed above before issuing a final rule. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zones without first obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders 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 rule establishes safety zones limiting access to certain areas under 33 CFR 165 within Sector Upper Mississippi River's AOR. The effect of this proposed rulemaking will not be significant because these safety zones are limited in scope and duration. Additionally, the public is given advance notification through local forms of notice, the Federal Register, and/or Notices of Enforcement and thus will be able to plan operations around the safety zones in advance. Deviation from the safety zones established through this rulemaking may be requested from the COTP Upper Mississippi River or a designated representative and requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

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 received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. 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.

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

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 establishing safety zones limiting access to certain area under 33 CFR part 165 within Sector Upper Mississippi River's AOR. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are 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.

We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

Documents mentioned in this interim rule or the preceding NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

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

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 an NPRM with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The event sponsor was late in submitting the marine event application. This late submission did not give the Coast Guard enough time to publish an NPRM followed by a final rule before the effective date, thus making the publication of a NPRM impracticable. The event sponsor advised that the event is in correlation with a festival bringing together Perth Amboy and South Amboy, NJ to honor Independence Day. Any change to the date of the event would cause economic hardship on the event sponsor, negatively impacting other activities being held in conjunction with the event.

The location of the event is centrally located between both Perth Amboy and South Amboy which is more advantageous for the event spectators and sponsors. In addition, it has less of an impact on vessel traffic within Raritan Bay because it is out of the major shipping lanes.

We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, a delay or cancellation is contrary to the public's interest.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. This temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels from hazards associated with the fireworks display.

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone on the waters of Raritan Bay near Perth Amboy, NJ. All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP New York or a designated representative during the enforcement of the temporary safety zone. Entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within the temporary safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP New York or a designated representative.

Based on the inherent hazards associated with fireworks, the COTP New York has determined that fireworks launches in close proximity to water crafts pose a significant risk to public safety and property. The combination of increased number of recreational vessels, congested waterways, darkness punctuated by bright flashes of light, and debris, especially burning debris falling on passing or spectator vessels, has the potential to result in serious injuries or fatalities. This temporary safety zone will restrict vessels from a portion of Raritan Bay around the location of the fireworks launch platform before, during, and immediately after the fireworks display.

The Coast Guard determined that this regulated area will not have a significant impact on vessel traffic due to its temporary nature and limited size and the fact that vessels are allowed to transit the navigable waters outside of the regulated area.

Consistent with 33 CFR 165.7, the Coast Guard will notify the public and local mariners of this safety zone through appropriate means, which may include, but are not limited to, publication in the Federal Register, the Local Notice to Mariners, and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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.

The Coast Guard's implementation of this temporary safety zone will be of short duration and is designed to minimize the impact to vessel traffic on the navigable waters. This temporary safety zone will only be enforced for approximately 135 minutes. Due to the location, vessels will be able to transit around the safety zone in a safe manner.

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 an 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 the establishment of a temporary safety zone. 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 will be 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:

Table of Contents I. Background Information II. Final Action III. Incorporation by Reference IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Review I. Background Information

On April 13, 2016, the EPA proposed to approve the attainment plan submitted by the ODEQ on December 12, 2012 and to make a finding of attainment for the Klamath Falls PM2.5 area (81 FR 21814). An explanation of the CAA attainment planning requirements, a detailed analysis of the ODEQ's attainment plan submittal, and the EPA's reasons for proposing approval were provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking, and will not be restated here. The public comment period for this proposed rule ended on May 13, 2016. The EPA received no comments on the proposal.

The EPA is finalizing the finding of attainment and approving the attainment plan submitted by the ODEQ on December 12, 2012 for the Klamath Falls PM2.5 area as meeting the requirements of the CAA. The finding of attainment does not constitute a redesignation to attainment. Redesignations require states to meet a number of criteria including EPA approval of a state plan to maintain the air quality standard for 10 years after redesignation. Additionally, the EPA is approving and incorporating by reference updated versions of supporting regulations, specifically sections of Oregon Administrative Rules, Division 240 and Division 262 that provide for the contingency measures required under the CAA. The EPA is finalizing a Clean Data Determination (CDD) that suspends the requirements for the area to submit an attainment demonstration, associated Reasonably Available Control Measures, Reasonable Further Progress, contingency measures, and any other SIP planning requirements related to the attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, so long as the area continues to meet the standard. Although a CDD suspends the requirement for submission of certain attainment planning elements, it does not relieve the EPA of its responsibility to take action on a state's SIP submission. The EPA is fully approving the Klamath Falls nonattainment plan as meeting the requirements of the CAA. The EPA is also approving Exceptional Events on September 25, 2009; August 25, 28, and 31, 2012; and July 30 and August 5, 2013 and removing them from the data set used for regulatory purposes.

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 finalizing the incorporation by reference of the 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 and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 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).

On March 22, 2016 (81 FR 15200), the EPA proposed to approve in part and to disapprove in part SIP revisions submitted by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) on December 27, 2012, and supplemented on December 3, 2015, to address the interstate transport requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). More specifically, in the March 22, 2016 proposed rule, the EPA proposed to approve Arizona's SIP as meeting the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2 and to disapprove Arizona's SIP with respect to the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 4. Id., at 15204. No comments were submitted on the EPA's March 22, 2016 proposed action. On May 19, 2016 (81 FR 31513), the EPA published a final rulemaking action announcing its approval in part and disapproval in part of the relevant SIP revisions as proposed on March 22, 2016. However, in its May 19, 2016 final rule, the EPA inadvertently omitted the regulatory text that codifies the final action taken therein. This document corrects that oversight.

The EPA has determined that this action falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) which, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation where public notice and comment procedures are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. Public notice and comment for this action are unnecessary because the action codified herein was already subject to a 30-day comment period beginning with publication of the related proposed rule on March 22, 2016, and as noted above, no comments were submitted. Thus, no purpose would be served by additional public notice and comment.

The EPA also finds that there is good cause under APA section 553(d)(3) for the regulatory text added herein to become effective on the same date as the final rulemaking for which the regulatory text was inadvertently omitted. Section 553(d)(3) of the APA allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in APA section 553(d)(3) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. This rule, however, does not create any new regulatory requirements such that affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule takes effect. Rather, this rule merely adds regulatory text codifying the partial approval and partial disapproval action that the EPA published on May 19, 2016, which is 30 days from the date on which this rule will become effective. The May 19, 2016 final rule thus provided sufficient notice and time for affected parties to take appropriate action to the extent any action is necessary to comply with the rule. For these reasons, the EPA finds good cause under APA section 553(d)(3) for the regulatory text codified herein and associated with the May 19, 2016 final rule to become effective on same date as the May 19, 2016 final rule becomes effective (i.e., June 20, 2019).

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely adds regulatory text inadvertently omitted from a previous final rule and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule merely adds regulatory text inadvertently omitted from a previous final rule, and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it 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).

The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

This rule also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This rule merely corrects an inadvertent omission of regulatory text for a previously published final rule, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act (CAA). This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In addition, this rule does not involve technical standards, thus the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule also does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. This determination must be supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). As stated previously, the EPA has made such a good cause finding, including the reasons therefore, and established an effective date of June 20, 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. 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 August 5, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

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

I. Background

The Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission is an independent Federal agency established by the Central Utah Project Completion Act of 1992. The Act set terms and conditions for completing the Central Utah Project, which diverts stores and delivers large quantities of water from numerous Utah rivers to meet the needs of central Utah's citizens. The Commission is responsible for planning, funding, and implementing projects that benefit fish, wildlife, and related recreation resources in order to offset impacts caused by the Central Utah Project, and other Federal water reclamation projects in Utah. The Commission meets publicly to consider and act on agreements to carry out mitigation projects with various partners, including State and Federal natural resource agencies and non-profit groups. The Commission has relocated its place of business to 230 South 500 East, Suite 230 in Salt Lake City, Utah 84102-2045. This rule updates the agency location where it is referenced in 43 CFR 10000.7(a).

The Commission has determined that the public notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b), do not apply to this rulemaking. Because updating the agency's address is a matter of “agency organization, procedure, and practice,” it is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). The Commission has also determined that there is good cause to waive the requirement of publication 30 days in advance of the rule's effective date under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The public benefits from having the regulations reflect the agency's correct physical address so it has accurate information on how to contact the agency. The use of the incorrect address could result in correspondence not reaching the agency.

The Commission has determined that making changes to its regulations to reflect its correct address does not trigger any requirements under the procedural statutes and Executive Orders that govern rulemaking procedures.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 552 and section 301(g)(3)(A) of the Central Utah Project Completion Act, amend part 10000 of Chapter III of title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

This is a summary of the Commission's Order (Order), Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Section 105, Relay Services for Deaf-Blind Individuals, CG Docket No. 10-210, FCC 16-69, adopted on May 26, 2016, and released on May 27, 2016. The full text of this document will be available for public inspection and copying via ECFS, and during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The full text of this document can also be downloaded in Word or Portable Document Format (PDF) at: https://www.fcc.gov/general/disability-rights-office-headlines. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

This Order does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

1. In this Order, the Commission extends the National Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program (NDBEDP), as a pilot program, for one additional year, until June 30, 2017. The NDBEDP provides up to $10 million annually to support programs that distribute communications equipment to low-income individuals who are deaf-blind. The NDBEDP has operated as a pilot program since July 2012 and is currently set to expire on June 30, 2016. Extending the pilot program for an additional year will enable the NDBEDP to continue providing communications equipment to low-income individuals who are deaf-blind without interruption while the Commission completes the proceeding that is underway to adopt rules to govern a permanent NDBEDP.

2. The Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA), 47 U.S.C. 620, directed the Commission to establish rules to provide up to $10 million annually from the Interstate Telecommunications Relay Service Fund (TRS Fund) to support programs that distribute communications equipment to low-income individuals who are deaf-blind. In accordance with this directive, the Commission established the NDBEDP as a two-year pilot program, with an option to extend this program for an additional year. The Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB or Bureau) launched the NDBEDP as a pilot program on July 1, 2012. Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Section 105, Relay Services for Deaf-Blind Individuals, Report and Order, published at 76 FR 26641, May 9, 2011. To implement the program, the Bureau certified 53 entities to participate in the NDBEDP—one entity to distribute communications equipment in each state, plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands—and selected a national outreach coordinator to support the outreach and distribution efforts of these state programs. On February 7, 2014, the Bureau extended the pilot program for a third year, until June 30, 2015. Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Section 105, Relay Services for Deaf-Blind Individuals, Order (CGB 2015). On May 27, 2015, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to obtain additional input from the public on how best to design and administer a permanent NDBEDP. Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Section 105, Relay Services for Deaf-Blind Individuals, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, published at 80 FR 32885, June 10, 2015. In addition, the Commission simultaneously issued an Order that extended the pilot program for an additional year, until June 30, 2016. Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Section 105, Relay Services for Deaf-Blind Individuals, Order, published at 80 FR 32857, June 10, 2015.

3. To ensure the uninterrupted administration of the NDBEDP until the conclusion of the rulemaking proceeding and the establishment of a permanent program for the delivery of communications equipment to low-income individuals who are deaf-blind, the Commission extends the existing NDBEDP pilot program rules for one additional year, until June 30, 2017. The Commission adopts this extension because it anticipates that this rulemaking proceeding and the implementation of new rules that may result will not be completed by June 30, 2016, when the rules governing the NDBEDP pilot program are scheduled to expire.

4. Many individuals who have received equipment and training under the NDBEDP have reported that this program has vastly improved their daily lives, significantly enhancing their ability to live independently and expanding their educational and employment opportunities. Extending the pilot program will serve the public interest because it will allow a seamless transition between the pilot and permanent programs. This extension will also provide greater programmatic certainty and stability to entities that are currently certified to participate in the NDBEDP in each of the 50 states plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

5. Federal Rules Which Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With, the Commission's Proposals. None.

6. The Commission will send a copy of the Order, including a copy of the Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA.

7. The Commission will not send a copy of the Order pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, because the Commission adopted no rules therein. See 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). Rather than adopting rules, the Commission exercised its statutory authority to extend the NDBEDP as a pilot program by this Order for one additional year.

8. Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 719 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 620, the Order is adopted.

As part of NASA's retrospective review of existing regulations pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, NASA conducted a review of it regulations and published a final rule in the Federal Register on March 12, 2015 (80 FR 12946). As published, this rule contains errors due to inadvertent omissions. A summary of changes follows:

• Subpart 1849.5 is removed in its entirety. Section 1849.5 titled Contract Termination Clauses contained a prescription at 1849.505-70 for which the associated clause at 1852.249-72 had been previously removed by a final rule published on March 12, 2015 (80 FR 12935).

• Section 1852.214-71 is revised to correct a paragraph designation.

Accordingly, 48 CFR parts 1849 and 1852 are amended as follows:

NMFS is issuing a final rule under the authority of the Tuna Conventions Act of 1950, as amended (TCA). 16 U.S.C. 951 et seq. As a party to the Convention for the Strengthening of the IATTC Established by the 1949 Convention between the United States of America and the Republic of Costa Rica and a member of the IATTC, the United States is obligated to implement the decisions of the IATTC, including resolutions governing the conservation of tuna and tuna-like species in the Convention Area. The Convention Area includes the waters bounded by the coast of the Americas, the 50° N. and 50° S. parallels, and the 150° W. meridian. NMFS implements binding resolutions of the IATTC under authority of the TCA. The regulations at 50 CFR 300.22(b)(1) implement Resolution C-02-03 (Resolution on the Capacity of the Tuna Fleet Operating in the Eastern Pacific Ocean (Revised)) adopted by the IATTC in June 2002. This rule makes a minor, technical revision to those regulations to be more consistent with the resolution and facilitate fishing by U.S. vessels in the EPO.

Paragraph 12 of Resolution C-02-03 provides opportunities for up to 32 U.S. vessels authorized to fish in other areas of the Pacific Ocean under an alternative international fisheries management regime to fish a single trip per year in the EPO even if the vessels are not listed on the IATTC's Vessel Register. Vessels shall be authorized to fish in the EPO provided that the fishing activity of any such vessels in the EPO is limited to a single trip not to exceed 90 days in one calendar year, the vessels do not possess a Dolphin Mortality Limit pursuant to the Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program, and the vessels carry an approved observer. The current regulations implementing Resolution C-02-03, issued on April 12, 2005 (70 FR 19004), explicitly reference South Pacific Tuna Treaty (SPTT) licenses as the only licenses that qualify vessels for the single-trip exception. At the time of the 2005 final rule, the SPTT was the predominant “alternative international fisheries management regime” that provided for the authorization of fishing by U.S. purse seine vessels in the western Pacific Ocean. The WCPF Convention entered into force for the United States in 2007.

Under regulations implementing the decisions of the Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPFC), vessels used to commercially fish highly migratory species on the high seas in the WCPF Convention Area must be permitted to do so by NMFS (see 50 CFR 300.212). Because of the large overlap between the WCPFC Convention Area and the SPTT Area, vessels that fish under the SPTT also are typically permitted by NMFS under 50 CFR 300.212 to fish on the high seas in the WCPF Convention Area. These vessels are subject to regulations implementing conservation and management measures adopted by the WCPFC, the organization that carries out the management regime established under the WCPF Convention.

SPTT licenses were not issued for the period starting January 1, 2016, through early March 2016, and it is unclear if they will be issued beyond 2016. Because of the wording of the implementing regulations, U.S. vessels could not use the single-trip EPO exception during the period of non-issuance of SPTT licenses. This final rule amends 50 CFR 300.22(b)(1) to allow U.S. vessels authorized to fish in areas of the Pacific Ocean other than the EPO under another alternative international fisheries management regime (e.g., the WCPFC) to fish under the single-vessel exception.

This rule also revises 50 CFR 216.24(b)(6)(iii)(C) to: remove and replace the reference to “South Pacific Tuna Treaty” to conform to § 300.22(b) described above, and correct two cross-references to § 300.22(b). Also in that paragraph, the reference to the Southwest Regional Administrator, NMFS, is changed to “Administrator, West Coast Region” to reflect the merger of the former Southwest Region into a new West Coast Region and assumption of the responsibilities of the former Southwest Regional Administrator by the new West Coast Regional Administrator.

The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this rule is consistent with the Tuna Conventions Act, as amended, and other applicable laws.

There is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this action. Replacing “South Pacific Tuna Treaty” in the regulations with the exact wording from IATTC Resolution C-02-03 “alternative international tuna purse seine fisheries management regime” is a minor, technical correction that reflects the original intention of the regulation. The same vessels operating in the Western Pacific that were intended to be able to use the single-trip exception under the original wording would have access to the exception under the revised wording, and no vessels are added or removed from eligibility. Furthermore, because the purse seine fishery for tuna is active now in the Eastern Pacific, the existing reference to “South Pacific Tuna Treaty” in the absence of the issuance of SPTT licenses is an impediment to lawful fishing by U.S. vessels under Resolution C-02-03. Therefore, providing prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this action would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. For the same reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) NMFS finds good cause to waive the requirement to delay for 30 days the effectiveness of this rule.

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

Because prior notice and opportunity for public comment are not required for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., are inapplicable.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 216 and 300 are amended as follows:

Need for Correction

On May 2, 2016, NMFS published a final rule (81 FR 26157) that implemented the fishery management measures for the 2016 ocean salmon fisheries off the coasts of the states of Washington, Oregon, and California under the jurisdiction of the Council. Subsequent to filing this rule with the Office of the Federal Register, two typographical errors were noted.

On page 26164, the table under the subheading “B. Minimum Size,” for the area “Point Arena to Pigeon Point,” two time periods are listed that incorrectly exclude the date September 1. This is inconsistent with the management measures described in the related text within the rule. Additionally, these size restrictions are intended to be consistent with the commercial salmon fisheries managed by the State of California. This rule corrects the table to be consistent with the management measures described in the text of the final rule, and as adopted and recommended by the Council and as implemented by the State of California.

On page 26169, in the first column, under the subheading “C.1. Tribe and Area Boundaries,” in the fourth paragraph, an incorrect latitude was provided for the Queets River. This latitude is intended to be consistent with usual and accustomed fishing areas established by a recent court ruling (United States v. Washington, 2:09-sp-00001-RSM (W.D. Wash. Sept. 3, 2015)). This latitude is listed correctly elsewhere in the rule, and should be consistent throughout the rule to avoid confusion. This rule corrects the latitude for the Queets River to be consistent with the rest of the management measures and the currently defined usual and accustomed fishing area for the Quileute Nation.

The states, tribes, and Pacific Fishery Management Council staff have been notified of these corrections. These corrections have been made in the fishery booklet provided to the public by NMFS West Coast Region. Therefore, these corrections are anticipated by the public and the regulatory agencies and their implementation will cause no harm.

In the Federal Register of May 2, 2016 (81 FR 26157), make the following corrections:

1. On page 26164, under the subheading “B. Minimum Size,” the table for minimum size limits in the 2016 commercial salmon fisheries is corrected in its entirety to read as follows:

2. On page 26169, first column, under the subheading “C.1. Tribe and Area Boundaries,” the fourth paragraph is corrected to read as follows:

QUILEUTE—That portion of the FMA between 48°10′00″ N. lat. (Cape Alava.) and 47°31′42″ N. lat. (Queets River) and east of 125°44′00″ W. long.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries (AA) finds there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be unnecessary and contrary to public interest. Notice and comment are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest because this action corrects inadvertent errors in regulations for a fishery that opened on May 1, and immediate notice of the error and correction is necessary to prevent confusion among participants in the fishery that could result from the existing conflict between state and tribal regulations and the final rule. This error was noticed by NMFS on April 29, 2016, after the final rule had been filed with the Office of the Federal Register. To effectively correct the error, this correction must be done as soon as possible, as the tribal fisheries commenced May 1. There is not sufficient time for a notice and comment rulemaking as the fishery has begun. In addition, this action makes only minor changes that the states and tribes are already aware of.

This correction will not affect the results of analyses conducted to support management decisions in the salmon fishery nor change the total catch of salmon. No change in operating practices in the fishery is required. For the same reasons, the AA has determined that good cause exists to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d). Because prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be provided for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., are not applicable. Accordingly, no Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is required for this rule and none has been prepared.

This final rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.