Federal Register Vol. 81, No.89,

Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), as amended, directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture “to develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade, and packaging, and recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices.”

AMS is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural commodities and makes copies of official standards available upon request. The U.S. standards for grades of fruits and vegetables that are not connected with Federal marketing orders or U.S. import requirements no longer appear in the Code of Federal Regulations, but are maintained by USDA, AMS, Specialty Crops Program, and are available on the Internet at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/.

AMS revised the voluntary U.S. Standards for Grades of Canned Baked Beans using the procedures that appear in part 36 of Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR part 36).

In September 2013, AMS received a petition from a professor emeritus in food science at Michigan State University asking the Agency to consider revising the current U.S. grade standards for canned baked beans to account for advances in industry processing technology. The petitioner requested the removal of the following text from the Product Description: “The product is prepared by washing, soaking, and baking by the application of dry heat in open or loosely covered containers in a closed oven at atmospheric pressure for sufficient prolonged time to produce a typical texture and flavor” and replacing it with: “The product is prepared by heating beans and sauce in a closed or open container for a period of time sufficient to provide texture, flavor, color, and consistency attributes that are typical for this product.”

Additional proposed changes to the U.S. Standards for Grades of Canned Baked Beans included separating the shared standard for canned dried beans, canned pork and beans, and canned baked beans into three individual standard documents and make minor editorial changes. These grade standards are recognized as three individual standards, but are contained in one document.

AMS published a proposed notice in the Federal Register on August 19, 2015 (80 FR 50262) with a 60-day public comment period. AMS received one comment in favor of the proposed changes to the canned baked bean standards.

This notice announces revisions to the third issuance of the U.S. Standards for Grades of Canned Baked Beans, which became effective on September 1, 1976, as follows:

Product Description. The text for § 52.6461 Product Description is revised to be: “The product is prepared by washing, soaking, and baking beans and sauce through the application of heat in a closed or open container for a period of time sufficient to provide texture, flavor, color, and consistency attributes that are typical for this product.”

Additionally, the U.S. Standards for Grades of Canned Dried Beans, Canned Pork and Beans, and Canned Baked Beans are separated into individual documents for the canned dried beans grade standards, canned pork and beans grade standards, and canned baked beans grade standards. There are no changes to the content of the canned dried beans or canned pork and beans grade standards.

The official grade of a lot of canned baked beans covered by these standards will be determined by the procedures set forth in the Regulations Governing Inspection and Certification of Processed Products, Thereof, and Certain Other Processed Food Products (7 CFR 52.1 to 52.83).

The revisions to the canned baked bean grade standard in this notice provide a common language for trade and better reflect the current marketing of canned baked beans. The changes are effective June 8, 2016.

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes; and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 2, 2015 (80 FR 67348) (“the NPRM”). We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking on certain holes of certain frames of the CWB, which could affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0149, dated June 13, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes; and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

Required actions also include oversizing certain holes, installing new fasteners, and repairing any cracking that is found. The initial compliance times range from 13,500 to 30,900 flight cycles, or 57,000 to 162,000 flight hours, depending on airplane operation and utilization. The repetitive compliance times are 7,400 flight cycles/24,300 flight hours or 5,950 flight cycles/40,400 flight hours from ALI embodiment. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-4808.

At the request of the Office of the Federal Register, we have revised the format of paragraph (g) of this AD by converting the table to text. This change to the format does not affect the requirements of that paragraph.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comment received. The commenter, Bowen Gass, supported the NPRM.

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

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

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

Airbus has issued the following service information. The service information describes procedures for removing the fasteners and doing a repetitive rototest inspection of fastener holes at FR40 vertical web on both sides, installing new fasteners in transition fit, and oversizing the holes.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3114, dated March 12, 2013.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3115, dated April 4, 2013.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3116, dated March 12, 2013.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4123, dated March 12, 2013.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4124, Revision 01, dated August 22, 2013.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4125, dated March 12, 2013.

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

We estimate that this AD affects 35 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it will take about 78 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $232,050, per inspection cycle, or $6,630 per product, per inspection cycle.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will take about 98 work-hours and require parts costing $136,400, for a cost of up to $144,730 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this action.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 24, 2015 (80 FR 9667) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by reports of fatigue cracking found at the left-side and right-side upper frame, at a certain area. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive MFEC inspections for cracking of the left-side and right-side upper frames, and repair (including open hole HFEC inspections for cracking of fastener holes) if necessary. The NPRM also provided an optional preventative modification that would terminate the repetitive inspections at the modified location. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the upper frame, which can grow in size and result in a severed frame, leading to rapid decompression and consequent reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

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

Europe Airpost and Boeing requested that we revise the NPRM to clarify the “Condition” column of table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1339, dated August 12, 2014, which specifies airplanes with certain flight cycles “on the original issue date of this service bulletin.” The commenters questioned whether the corresponding compliance time should be “on the effective date of the AD.”

For the reasons suggested by both commenters, we agree to add paragraph (i)(3) to this AD to state that the corresponding reference point is on the effective date of this AD, and we have included reference to paragraph (i)(3) in all appropriate paragraphs in this AD.

Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (g) of the proposed AD to address the inspection requirements in areas of an existing repair to eliminate cracking approved by a Boeing Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) via FAA Form 8100-9. Boeing explained that this condition is addressed in note (c) of table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1339, dated August 12, 2014, and that it effectively terminates the initial and repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of the proposed AD for previously installed frame repairs approved by the Boeing ODA via FAA Form 8100-9. Boeing requested that the proposed AD address the terminating action for this repair condition.

We agree that clarification is necessary. Boeing ODA-approved repairs installed prior to the effective date of this AD are acceptable to terminate the initial and repetitive inspections in the area under the repair. We have revised paragraph (g) of this AD accordingly, and added a new paragraph (g)(1) in this AD.

Southwest Airlines requested that we clarify paragraph (l)(4) of the proposed AD. Southwest Airlines explained that note 15 in paragraph 3.A., “General Information,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1339, dated August 12, 2014, states that steps in the Work Instructions that are identified as RC must be accomplished once the actions specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1339, dated August 12, 2014, becomes mandated by an AD. Southwest Airlines stated that note 15 also states that deviations to steps that are not identified as RC do not require approval of an Alternative Method of Compliance (AMOC). Southwest Airlines stated that paragraph (l)(4) of the proposed AD specifies that any service information that is identified as RC requires AMOC approval except as required by paragraph (i)(1) of the proposed AD. Paragraph (k) of the proposed AD states that the post-repair and post-modification inspections are not mandated by the AD, so it is unclear whether the proposed AD would require the operator to contact Boeing if there are crack findings during the post-repair and post-modification inspections, and whether or not the resulting repairs are subject to the requirements of the AD.

We agree to provide clarification. Paragraph (k) of this AD states that the post-repair and post-modification inspections specified in tables 4 and 5 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1339, dated August 12, 2014, are not required by this AD (tables 4 and 5 correspond to Parts 6 and 7, respectively, of the service information.). The RC steps in those parts are also not required by this AD. Any cracking found—whether during accomplishment of the actions required by an AD or during routine maintenance—is required by 14 CFR 43.13(b) to be repaired before further flight. However, for clarity, we have revised paragraph (i)(1) of this AD to refer only to Part 3 and Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1339, dated August 12, 2014. In addition, we have revised paragraph (l)(4) of this AD to refer to Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1339, dated August 12, 2014.

Southwest Airlines stated that the NPRM does not specifically address existing repairs that prevent accomplishment of the inspections proposed in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD. Note (c) in table 1 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1339, dated August 12, 2014, specifies that an ODA-approved repair, via FAA Form 8100-9, installed to eliminate previously found cracking, eliminates the need for the repetitive inspections at the repaired locations. Southwest requested that we revise the NPRM to apply this provision to repairs for damage other than cracking. Southwest Airlines also requested that we specifically state that any repair approved by Boeing via an FAA 8100-9 combined with approval of an AMOC to paragraph (h) of the proposed AD terminates both the initial and repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of the proposed AD.

We agree to add clarification regarding initial and repetitive inspections. To provide additional clarification in the rule we have revised the wording in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD. Also, we agree to revise the NPRM to include in this final rule, the provision for repairs for cracking in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, and the provision for repairs that were installed for damage other than cracking that have been re-evaluated and approved by the Boeing ODA with an FAA Form 8100-9 combined with an AMOC statement, in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.

Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/ebd1cec7b301293e86257cb30045557a/$FILE/ST01219SE.pdf) does not affect the actions specified in the NPRM.

We concur with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD as paragraph (c)(1) in this AD, and have added new paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST01219SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this final rule. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is installed, a “change in product” AMOC approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

We have revised paragraph (k) of this AD to clarify that the post-modification inspections are airworthiness limitations that are required by maintenance and operational rules; therefore, these inspections are not required by this AD.

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

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

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

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

Boeing has issued Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1339, dated August 12, 2014. The service information describes procedures for repetitive MFEC inspections for cracking, repair the cracking including doing an open hole HFEC inspections for cracking of the holes, and an optional modification of an inspection area including open hole and surface HFEC inspections for cracking of the area to be modified. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

We estimate that this AD affects 109 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions:

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

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

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, and

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

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

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. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are 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.

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).

We are not planning to hold a public meeting but will consider doing so if public comments indicate a meeting would be helpful. We would issue a separate Federal Register notice to announce the date, time, and location of such a meeting.

Sections 2103 and 3306 of Title 46, United States Code (U.S.C.), provide the statutory basis for this rulemaking. Section 2103 gives the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating general regulatory authority to implement Subtitle II (Chapters 21 through 147) of Title 46, which includes statutory requirements in 46 U.S.C. Chapter 33 for inspecting the vessels to which this rulemaking applies. Section 3306 gives the Secretary authority to regulate an inspected vessel's operation, fittings, equipment, appliances, and other items in the interest of safety. The Secretary's authority under both statutes has been delegated to the Coast Guard in DHS Delegation No. 0170.1, para. II (92.a) and (92.b).

The purpose of this rule is to align Coast Guard regulations with the requirements for cargo securing manuals in the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 as amended (SOLAS), and apply those requirements to certain self-propelled U.S. cargo vessels operating anywhere in the world, and to certain foreign-flagged self-propelled cargo vessels operating in U.S. waters. Another purpose of this rule is to specify when and how the loss or jettisoning of cargo at sea must be reported.

This rule aims to help ensure that maritime cargo is properly secured. A recent survey by the World Shipping Council (WSC) estimated that an average of 1,679 containers are lost overboard annually.1 The number of damaged and lost containers has risen over the years due to the increased traffic in containerized cargo and the increasing size of containerships.

Several incidents since the early 1990s demonstrated that improperly secured cargo can cause serious injury or death, vessel loss, property damage, and environmental damage. For example, a Coast Guard board of inquiry concluded that the loss of 21 containers—4 of which contained toxic arsenic trioxide—off the coast of New Jersey in 1992 was caused by cargo-securing failures, bad weather, and human error.2 With the support of other International Maritime Organization (IMO) member governments, the United States led a proposal to include new requirements for cargo securing manuals (CSMs) in SOLAS. In 1994, the IMO amended SOLAS 3 to provide that, after 1997, vessels of 500 gross tons or more engaged in international trade and carrying cargo other than solid or liquid bulk material must carry a flag state-approved CSM; load, stow, and secure cargo in compliance with the CSM; and meet strength requirements for securing devices and arrangements.

The SOLAS CSM requirements are included as an annex to a Coast Guard guidance document issued in 1997,4 but a vessel owner or operator's compliance with that guidance is only voluntary. This interim rule makes compliance with the SOLAS standards mandatory for self-propelled vessels over 500 gross tons on international voyages that are subject to SOLAS.

Previously in this rulemaking, we issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 5 in 2000 and a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) 6 in 2013. Although it was not part of this rulemaking, in 1999 we held a public meeting on topics related to cargo securing.7 In the SNPRM, we discussed the comments we received on the 2000 NPRM and public input from the 1999 meeting. We discuss the comments we received on the 2013 SNPRM later in this preamble.

This section summarizes the changes made in this interim rule.

33 CFR part 97—Rules for the Safe Operation of Vessels, Stowage and Securing of Cargoes. The interim rule adds this part, which is structured to allow for future regulations covering other aspects of vessel operation and cargo stowage and securing. At this time, the part contains only subpart A, which deals with CSMs.

Section 97.100 contains the applicability provisions of subpart A and provides for electronic submission of any documents required by the part. Subpart A applies to self-propelled cargo vessels of 500 gross tons or more traveling on international voyages and carrying any cargo other than solid or liquid bulk cargo. We expect very few vessels to be affected by the new requirements, as most foreign vessels operating in U.S. waters are already subject to their flag state's SOLAS CSM-aligned requirements, and all U.S. vessels already voluntarily comply with those requirements in order to obtain SOLAS certificates that are necessary for entering foreign ports. Subpart A also applies to self-propelled vessels less than 500 gross tons if their owners or operators choose voluntarily to have it apply to them and submit CSMs for approval.

We have revised the text of § 97.100 as it appeared in the SNPRM by removing seagoing barges and other non-self propelled vessels from the applicability of subpart A, which were inadvertently included in the proposed regulatory text of the SNPRM. This interim rule applies only to self-propelled cargo vessels that are subject to SOLAS Chapter VI/5.6 or Chapter VII/5.

As we discussed in Part V, Discussion of Comments, in our SNPRM, a commenter suggested extending the applicability of subpart A to self-propelled cargo vessels below 500 gross tons carrying dangerous goods in packaged form on international voyages. We agree with the commenter's assessment that the cargo securing manual requirements of Chapter VII/5 of SOLAS apply to all vessels covered by other SOLAS provisions and to vessels below 500 gross tons that carry dangerous goods in packaged form. As previously stated, one of our intentions in this rule is to align our regulations with SOLAS requirements for cargo securing manuals, and therefore we propose modifying the final rule to more accurately align with SOLAS by applying it to self-propelled cargo vessels less than 500 gross tons carrying dangerous goods in packaged form on international voyages, as well as to larger vessels. We specifically request public comment on that proposed change.

Section 97.105 defines terms used in subpart A, and § 97.110 provides for the incorporation in subpart A, by reference, of pertinent IMO circulars describing how vessels may comply with the SOLAS CSM requirements, as well as an IMO resolution providing guidelines for third parties acting on behalf of a government agency like the Coast Guard.

Section 97.115 requires any accidental loss or deliberate jettisoning of a container or other cargo at sea to be reported immediately under 33 CFR 160.215. This is because any such loss or jettisoning creates a “hazardous condition” within the meaning of 33 CFR 160.204. The section also requires the loss or jettisoning of cargo containing hazardous material to be reported as soon as possible in accordance with the U.S. Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulations at 49 CFR 176.48.

Section 97.120 requires each vessel to which subpart A applies to have a flag state-approved CSM that complies with applicable IMO resolutions. Coast Guard personnel may board any vessel in U.S. waters to verify compliance with this section. Note that any container vessel with a keel laid on or after January 1, 2015, needs to include a cargo safe access plan. Under the applicable IMO guidance, such a plan must provide detailed information on safe access for persons stowing and securing cargo on vessels that are specifically designed and fitted for carrying containers.

Section 97.200 describes how a U.S.-flagged vessel owner or operator applies for Coast Guard approval of the vessel's CSM. Third-party approval authorities review and approve CSMs on the Coast Guard's behalf. This section also describes the contents of approval statements, the procedure to follow when a CSM is disapproved, and document retention requirements.

Section 97.205 describes when a CSM must be resubmitted for approval, and § 97.210 contains provisions for appeal from a CSM approval authority's decision.

Section 97.300 designates the organizations that are initially authorized to act as CSM approval authorities, and §§ 97.305 through 97.315 discuss who may request that authorization in the future, the criteria for authorization, and the requirements for approval authorities. We modified this section from what we originally published in the SNPRM by removing specific reference to the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) and Lloyd's Register, because they are already included on the list of recognized classification societies to which the Coast Guard has delegated authority for the issuance of a Cargo Ship Safety Equipment Certificate in accordance with 46 CFR 8.320(b)(4) and covered under the paragraph recognizing those classification societies. Section 97.320 provides for the revocation of authorization if an approval authority fails to maintain standards acceptable to the Coast Guard.

33 CFR part 160—Ports and Waterways Safety—General. The only change made to part 160 is an amendment to § 160.215, to prescribe the information to be reported when a hazardous condition is created by the loss or jettisoning of cargo.

46 CFR part 97—[Cargo and Miscellaneous Vessel] Operations. The interim rule amends the subpart 97.12 operational rules for vessels carrying bulk solid cargoes by adding § 97.12-10, which requires such vessels to have on board a CSM that complies with 33 CFR part 97.

The SNPRM drew public comments from 12 sources: 7 Individuals (one of whom submitted 2 comments, which we consider together), 2 barge companies, 1 shipping industry organization, 1 trade association, and 1 environmental advocacy organization. The docket also contains 1 comment from another Federal agency.

General. All three organizations and six individuals expressed support for the Coast Guard's proposal.

The environmental advocacy organization and two individuals said that the loss of cargo containers is a serious problem. The organization said container loss has an immediate impact by changing deep sea habitats, and a long term impact by changing the natural distribution of species, including the threat of introducing invasive species. One individual said container loss is a major threat to the environment, to pleasure craft, and to commercial shipping. This commenter suggested that the insurance industry should welcome our proposal because of the economic impact of container losses. The other individual said we should require containers to be weighed so that weight can be distributed for safety.

We share these commenters' concern for the safety and environmental hazards that can be caused by the loss of containers or other cargo at sea, and we agree with most of their comments. However, we decline to require containers to be weighed, because this information is the subject of several existing Federal and International Maritime Organization (IMO) requirements. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration requires a container to be weighed before it can be handled by U.S. workers, and the Department of Transportation has stringent notification and certification requirements for intermodal containers.8 With the Coast Guard's full participation, the IMO recently amended an international convention to require shippers to verify a container's gross mass to a vessel's master before it is loaded on board.9 The existence of these requirements makes it unnecessary for the Coast Guard to issue separate and potentially overlapping provisions on the topic.

The shipping organization said that, whereas the SNPRM based its cost analysis on an IMO estimate of 4,000 containers lost at sea per year worldwide, the shipping organization's own analysis found that, on average, only 1,679 containers are lost at sea each year. We appreciate the shipping organization's analysis and are using their most current estimate in the regulatory analysis for this interim rule. Please see Section VIII, Regulatory Analyses, for details.

The two towing companies expressed appreciation that we do not propose to regulate cargo securing on barges in coastwise trade, but opposed our SNPRM's proposed extension 10 of such regulations to seagoing barges in international commerce. The companies said that barges have a strong safety record and are not subject to cargo securing requirements under SOLAS. Therefore, they should not be required to undertake the work of developing unique CSMs for each type of cargo. They also pointed out that, if seagoing barges are included, the universe of affected vessels will be far greater than the 26 U.S.-flagged vessels the Coast Guard estimates will be impacted in its regulatory analysis. They specifically requested that the Coast Guard clarify that “barges on international voyages will also be exempt from this rulemaking.” We agree with the commenters and the interim rule amends the applicability provisions of new 33 CFR 97.100 so that part 97, subpart A, applies only to self-propelled vessels that are subject to SOLAS Chapter VI/5.6 or Chapter VII/5. SOLAS does not apply to non self-propelled vessels and the barge industry has demonstrated a strong safety record in the past. Therefore, we do not intend to require non-self-propelled vessels to have CSMs at this time.

Proposed change for final rule. One of the individual commenters said that, to conform to Chapter VII/5 of SOLAS, we should regulate cargo securing on cargo vessels below 500 gross tons as well as on vessels of 500 gross tons and above. We agree with the commenter's assessment that the cargo securing manual requirements of Chapter VII/5 of SOLAS apply to all vessels covered by other SOLAS provisions and to vessels below 500 gross tons that carry dangerous goods in packaged form. As previously stated, one of our intentions in this rule is to align our regulations with SOLAS requirements for cargo securing manuals, and, therefore, we propose modifying the final rule to more accurately align with SOLAS by extending the applicability provisions of 33 CFR 97.100 to self-propelled cargo vessels less than 500 gross tons carrying dangerous goods in packaged form on international voyages. We specifically request public comment on that proposal.

The Director of the Federal Register has approved the material in 33 CFR 97.110 for incorporation by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552 and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of the material are available from the sources listed in § 97.110. The following paragraphs summarize the material incorporated by reference.

IMO Assembly Resolution A.739(18) (Res.A.739(18)), Guidelines for the Authorization of Organizations Acting on Behalf of the Administration, November 22, 1993: International guidelines developed to establish a uniform program for controlling and assigning authority of organizations to act on behalf of administrations in conducting surveys, certifications, and determination of tonnages.

IMO Maritime Safety Committee Circular 1352 (MSC.1/Circ.1352), Amendments to the Code of Safe Practice for Cargo Stowage and Securing (CSS Code) Annex 14, Guidance on Providing Safe Working Conditions for Securing of Containers on Deck, June 30, 2010: International guidance developed to ensure persons engaged in carrying out container securing operations on deck have safe working conditions including safe access, and appropriate securing equipment.

IMO Maritime Safety Committee Circular 1353 (MSC.1/Circ. 1353/Rev.1), Revised Guidelines for the Preparation of the Cargo Securing Manual, December 15, 2014: International guidelines providing information on developing cargo securing manuals, including required contents and details for stowing and securing non-standardized and semi-standardized cargo.

We developed this interim rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes or E.O.s.

Executive Orders 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, 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 (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.

This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by E.O. 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that E.O. Accordingly, the rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). A final Regulatory Assessment for the interim rule follows.

This interim rule amends the CFR by adding the following provisions:

• Requirements for the reporting of lost or jettisoned cargo;

• The CSM requirements of SOLAS, for vessels of 500 gross tons or more;

• Extending the CSM requirements to self-propelled cargo vessels that travel on international voyages and carry cargo other than solid or liquid bulk cargo that is designated as a dangerous good carried in packaged form; and

• Procedures for authorization of third-party organizations to review and approve CSMs on the Coast Guard's behalf.

Table 1 presents a summary of our analysis.

Table 2 presents a summary of the 10-year cost schedule, showing total costs on an undiscounted basis and discounted at 7-percent and 3-percent interest rates.

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule (TFR) 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 to do so would be unnecessary. This deviation is already in place and waterway users are already acting in accordance with the schedule with no actual or anticipated impacts. Additionally, in response to the initial request from the ODOT, the Coast Guard published a notice of deviation on February 3, 2016, 81 FR 6758, which temporarily changed the operating schedule of the Old Youngs Bay Bridge through June 15, 2016. The Coast Guard contacted known waterway users who indicated such a deviation would have no significant impact. Therefore, it is unnecessary to provide an opportunity for notice and comment.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499. The ODOT owns and operates the Old Youngs Bay Bridge in accordance with 33 CFR 117.899(b). This bridge provides a vertical clearance approximately 19 feet above mean high water when in the closed-to-navigation position. ODOT is conducting bridge repairs, which are scheduled to be complete on October 31, 2016. In order to facilitate bridge repairs, one half of the double bascule bridge will have a containment system installed on the non-opening half of the span. This containment system will reduce the vertical clearance of the bridge by 5 feet, or 14 feet above mean high water. Both the previous notice of temporary deviation and this TFR allow the drawtender to open only half the draw span in single leaf mode.

Marine traffic on Youngs Bay consists of vessels ranging from small pleasure craft, sailboats, small tribal fishing boats, and commercial tug and tow, and mega yachts.

We are amending 33 CFR 117.899 to indicate that half of the double bascule span of the Youngs Bay Bridge will be opened instead of both spans once notice has been provided to the drawtender at the Lewis and Clark River Bridge. The draw span will be operable from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. on weekdays and from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. on weekends. This amendment will be in effect from 12 a.m. on June 16, 2016 through 11:59 p.m. on October 31, 2016, after which the bridge will be able to open both spans as before. The TFR is necessary to accommodate extensive maintenance and restoration efforts on the Old Youngs Bay Bridge. The TFR will allow construction workers to complete bridge and highway upgrades before winter, while having minimal impact on maritime navigation.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders (E.O.(s)) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and E.O.(s), and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

E.O. 12866 and E.O. 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. E.O. 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 E.O. 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This regulatory action determination is based on the ability of the Old Youngs Bay Bridge to open half the span on signal.

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. While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this 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 would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 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 E.O. 13132.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 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.

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 proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this proposed 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 preliminary 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 proposed rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Normally such actions are 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 is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Because of the dangers posed by the pyrotechnics used in this fireworks display, the safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of event participants, spectators, spectator craft, and other vessels transiting the event area. For the safety concerns noted, it is in the public interest to have these regulations in effect during the event in order to minimize potential danger to the public during the event. However, the Coast Guard received the information about the fireworks display on February 26, 2016. There is not enough time to complete the rulemaking process before the fireworks display is scheduled to occur.

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 these same reasons, the Coast Guard finds good cause for implementing this rule less than thirty days before the effective date of the rule.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish safety zones.

The San Francisco State University Graduation will feature a finale fireworks display on May 28, 2016, near AT&T Park in San Francisco, CA in approximate position 37°46′36″ N. 122°22′56″ W. (NAD 83) as depicted in National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Chart 18650. During the loading, transit, and arrival of the fireworks barge and until the start of the fireworks display, the temporary safety zone applies to the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 100 feet. From 1 p.m. until 5 p.m. on May 28, 2016, the fireworks barge will be loading at Pier 50 in San Francisco, CA. The fireworks barge will remain at Pier 50 until the start of the transit. From 8 p.m. until 8:30 p.m. on May 28, 2016, the loaded fireworks barge will transit from Pier 50 to the launch site near AT&T Park in San Francisco, CA in approximate position 37°46′36″ N. 122°22′56″ W. (NAD 83), where it will remain until the commencement of the fireworks display. Prior to the commencement of the 10-minute fireworks display, at 9:30 p.m. on May 28, 2016, the safety zone will expand to encompass the navigable waters within 700 feet of approximate position 37°46′36″ N. 122°22′56″ W. (NAD 83). The fireworks display is meant for entertainment purposes. This restricted area around the fireworks launch site is necessary to protect spectators, vessels, and other property from the hazards associated with pyrotechnics.

The proposed safety zone will encompass the navigable waters around the barge near AT&T Park in San Francisco, CA. During the loading, transit, and arrival of the fireworks barge and until the start of the fireworks display, the temporary safety zone applies to the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 100 feet. From 1 p.m. until 5 p.m. on May 28, 2016, the fireworks barge will be loading at Pier 50 in San Francisco, CA. The fireworks barge will remain at Pier 50 until the start of the transit. From 8 p.m. until 8:30 p.m. on May 28, 2016, the loaded fireworks barge will transit from Pier 50 to the launch site near AT&T Park in San Francisco, CA in approximate position 37°46′36″ N. 122°22′56″ W. (NAD 83), where it will remain until the commencement of the fireworks display. Prior to the commencement of the 10-minute fireworks display, at 9:30 p.m. on May 28, 2016, the safety zone will expand to encompass the navigable waters within a radius of 700 feet of approximate position 37°46′36″ N. 122°22′56″ W. (NAD 83). The safety zone shall terminate at 10 p.m.

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

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders (E.O.'s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and E.O.'s, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

E.O.s 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. E.O. 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 E.O. 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 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 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone of limited size and duration. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

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:

On January 20, 2016, the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking entitled Safety Zones; Annual Events Requiring Safety Zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan Zone in the Federal Register (81 FR 3069). No comments were received. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

The legal basis for this rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish safety zones: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

The purpose of this rulemaking is to update the safety zones in § 165.929 to ensure that they match the times, dates, and dimensions for various marine and triggering events that are expected to be conducted with the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan Zone throughout the year. The purpose of the rulemaking is also to ensure vessels and persons are protected from the specific hazards related to the aforementioned events. These specific hazards include obstructions to the waterway that may cause marine casualties; collisions among vessels maneuvering at a high speed within a channel; the explosive dangers involved in pyrotechnics and hazardous cargo; and flaming/falling debris into the water that may cause injuries.

As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published on January 20, 2016. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

This rule amends 18 permanent safety zones found within table 165.929 in 33 CFR 165.929. These 18 amendments involve updating the location, size, and/or enforcement times for: 11 fireworks displays in various locations; 1 regatta in Spring Lake, Michigan; 3 Air Shows; 1 Facility in Marinette, Wisconsin; 1 boat race from Chicago, Illinois; and 1 ski show in Sister Bay, Wisconsin.

Additionally, this rule adds 3 new safety zones to table 165.929 within § 165.929 for annually-reoccurring events in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan Zone. These 3 zones were added in order to protect the public from the safety hazards previously described. The 3 additions include 2 safety zones for fireworks displays, and 1 safety zone for a boat parade in Chicago Harbor, Chicago, Illinois. A list of specific changes and additions are available in the attachments within this Docket.

The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan has determined that the safety zones in this rule are necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and people during annual marine or triggering events in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone. Although this rule will be effective year-round, the safety zones in this rule will be enforced only immediately before, during, and after events that pose a hazard to the public and only upon notice by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.

The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan will notify the public that the zones in this rule are or will be enforced by all appropriate means to the affected segments of the public, including publication in the Federal Register, as practicable, in accordance with 33 CFR 165.7(a). Such means of notification may also include, but are not limited to, Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners.

All persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his or her designated representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zones is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his or her designated representative. The Captain of the Port or his or her designated representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of the 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 NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zones created by this rule will be relatively small and effective during the time to ensure safety of spectator and participants for the listed triggering or marine events. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zones, and the rule will allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zones.

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 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule will 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 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 safety zones for yearly triggering and marine events on and around Lake Michigan. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. An environmental analysis checklist and Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

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

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

In FR Doc. 2016-05489 published in the Federal Register of Wednesday, March 16, 2016 (80 FR 14230), the following corrections are made:

1. On page 14255, in the second column, the third full paragraph that starts with “Respondents:” is corrected to read as follows:

Total Respondents: 90 (30 States + 60 Rail Transit Agencies).

2. On page 14255, in the second column, the fifth full paragraph that starts with “Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:” is corrected to read as follows:

Total Annual Burden Hours: 586,443 hours (336,843 State Safety Oversight (SSO) Agency hours + 249,600 Rail Transit Agency (RTA) hours).

FTA estimates that the annual information collection burden for States implementing 49 CFR part 674 requirements is 336,843 total hours. This equates to approximately 11,228 hours devoted to information collection activities for each of the estimated 30 States in the SSO Program. FTA estimates that the annual information collection burden for RTAs is approximately 249,600 total hours, or approximately 4,160 hours for each of the 60 rail transit agencies in the SSO Program.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The B season apportionment of the 2016 Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) allocated to trawl catcher vessels in the BSAI is 5,460 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (81 FR 14773, March 18, 2016).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the B season apportionment of the 2016 Pacific cod TAC allocated to trawl catcher vessels in the BSAI will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 5,000 mt and is setting aside the remaining 460 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels using trawl gear in the BSAI.

After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels using trawl gear in the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of May 3, 2016.

The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.