Federal Register Vol. 83, No.128,

The System for Award Management (SAM) Exclusions is a list of persons and entities ineligible for Federal awards. Currently, Federal awarding agencies are required to check the list before making Federal awards to determine whether the person or entity is excluded, debarred, suspended, or otherwise prohibited from receiving Federal awards. If the person or entity is identified as prohibited from receiving Federal awards, Federal awarding agencies cannot make the award unless the Federal agency head or designee allows an exception consistent with existing law. This requirement flows down to Federal award recipients, who are required to check SAM Exclusions for all subawards and contracts equal to or exceeding $25,000. However, these requirements do not currently apply to a limited number of Federal awards given to certain types of foreign entities. The purpose of this interim action is to amend OMB Guidelines to agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) to extend these requirements of potential Federal awards to persons, entities, or organizations that have engaged in any activity that contributed to or is a significant factor in a country's non-compliance with its obligations under arms control, nonproliferation, or disarmament agreements or commitments with the United States.

Pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2593e(a)(1), the Secretary of the Treasury is required to submit to the appropriate Congressional committees a report, consistent with the protection of intelligence sources and methods, identifying every person with respect to whom there is credible information indicating that the person is an individual who is a citizen, national, or permanent resident of, or an entity organized under the laws of, a noncompliant country as described in 22 U.S.C. 2593e(a)(2); and has engaged in any activity that contributed to or is a significant factor in the President's or the Secretary of State's determination that such country is noncompliant.

The Secretary of the Treasury also identifies any person or entity that has provided material support for such noncompliance to a person or entity engaged in the noncompliant activities. The Secretary of Treasury posts this information, as appropriate and consistent with the protection of intelligence sources and methods, as an exclusion record in the SAM database. If the person or entity is on the SAM Exclusions list, the person or entity may not receive Federal awards and awards may not be renewed or extended.

With respect to each person or entity identified by the Secretary of the Treasury as having provided material support, the NDAA calls for the imposition of certain measures. Specifically, section 1290(c)(1) requires that the head of any executive agency may not enter into, renew, or extend a contract for the procurement of goods or services with such person or entity. Furthermore, section 1290(c)(3) directs that the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement, and the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards be revised accordingly to implement the NDAA requirement. The revisions to the FAR were published in the Federal Register on June 15, 2018 (83 FR 28145, FAR Case 2017-018). This action amends 2 CFR 180.215 to implement section 1290 of the NDAA.

This action amends 2 CFR part 180 to ensure that entities who have engaged in activity that contributed to or is a significant factor in a country's non-compliance with its obligations under arms control, nonproliferation or disarmament agreements or commitments with the United States are restricted from receiving non-procurement and procurement transactions. Currently, 2 CFR part 180 restricts Federal awards that are considered covered transactions to persons or entities that are listed in SAM Exclusions and these requirements flow down to all covered transactions, including: (1) All nonprocurement subawards; and (2) contracts that equal or exceed $25,000. However, 2 CFR 180.215 provides specific exceptions from what are considered covered transactions, including awards to certain types of foreign entities. This action revises 2 CFR 180.215 to define “covered transactions” to include direct awards, regardless of tier or amount for non-procurement and procurement transaction, to exempt foreign persons, entities and organizations if such persons, entities, or organizations have engaged in any activity that contributed to or is a significant factor in a country's non-compliance with its obligations under arms control, nonproliferation or disarmament agreements or commitments with the United States.

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under Section 6(b) of E.O. 12866. In addition, this action is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

This action is not an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because it is not significant under E.O. 12866.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., requires that an agency provide a final regulatory flexibility analysis or certify that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. OMB does not expect this interim action to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This interim action implements the provisions of section 1290 of the NDAA and will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it will affect only a small number of Federal awards that are currently excluded from the definition of covered transactions. Currently, the vast majority of Federal awards are subject to the 2 CFR part 180 provisions that apply to covered transactions.

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the changes to 2 CFR part 180 do not impose incremental recordkeeping or information collection requirements, or the collection of information that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

As this regulatory action involves a matter relating to Federal awards, it is not subject to the public procedure requirements of the informal rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2). Nevertheless, OMB is voluntarily seeking comment to be considered in the formation of the final action.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Office of Management and Budget amends 2 CFR part 180, as set forth below:

On February 6, 2013, at 78 FR 8448, HUD published a proposed rule to streamline the inspection and home warranty requirements for FHA single-family home insurance. As part of this rule, HUD proposed to eliminate the Roster,1 which lists inspectors, approved by HUD, to perform inspections in the limited circumstances when either: (1) A local jurisdiction did not already perform its own inspections for new construction, and issue building permits and certificates of occupancy; or (2) when the inspection of a structural repair or renovation was not performed by a licensed professional as specified by regulation. (See 24 CFR 200.170(b)). HUD originally established the Roster to standardize the inspection process for properties with FHA-insured mortgages. Before the Roster, cities and states developed their own building codes, which had little uniformity or consistency with each other. Now, however, the International Residential Code (IRC) is in use or adopted in 49 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.2 The International Code Council (ICC), which developed the IRC, also certifies Combination Inspectors (CIs) and Residential Combination Inspectors (RCIs). To be certified by the ICC, CIs and RCIs must pass a rigorous set of examinations, which includes testing their knowledge of the IRC. As a result, there is no longer a need for HUD to maintain and administer its own standardization process for inspectors.

For local jurisdictions that do not provide building code enforcement and requisite documentation, the rule proposed to accept inspections by an RCI, who is also licensed or certified as a home inspector in accordance with the applicable state and local requirements governing the licensing or certification of such inspectors in the respective jurisdiction. For jurisdictions who have an absence of RCIs, the rule proposed to require lenders to obtain an inspection performed by a third party who is a registered architect, a professional engineer, or a trades person or contractor and has met the licensing and bonding requirements of the state in which the property is located.

As part of the same publication, HUD also proposed to eliminate its requirement that borrowers purchase a 10-year protection plan for all high loan-to-value mortgages in order to qualify for FHA mortgage insurance. HUD had combined the two proposals as they both involved streamlining requirements for FHA single-family mortgage insurance. However, the two proposals are distinct and the regulations unrelated. In addition to covering separate subjects, the regulations applied to different parties. The procedures and requirements related to the Roster applied to inspectors and lenders, while the regulations regarding 10-year protection plans applied to homebuilders, lenders, and borrowers. The public comments reflect this distinction, in that they treated these proposals separately, with the exception of expressions of general support for both proposals. In order to properly address the separate comments received on each proposal and to be more transparent about the how the regulatory changes will affect different parties, this final rule only deals with elimination of the Roster. HUD is addressing elimination of the 10-year protection plan requirement in a separate rule.

Interested readers are referred to the preamble of the February 6, 2013, proposed rule for additional historical background and explanation of the proposed regulatory changes.

After considering public comment, HUD is making one change to the February 6, 2013, proposed rule. As discussed above, HUD proposed to accept inspections from RCIs for local jurisdictions that do not provide building code enforcement and requisite documentation. This final rule provides that HUD will also accept inspections performed by CIs, who are subject to the same rigorous ICC requirements required for RCI certification, and have also passed tests in the same disciplines for commercial buildings. HUD determined that the change is warranted due to similarity in the certification requirements between RCIs and CIs. Moreover, as more fully discussed in the following section of this preamble, expanding the number of inspectors certified by the ICC that are eligible to perform inspections will help to address the concern expressed by a commenter that some jurisdictions lack a sufficient number of RCIs.

The public comment period for the February 6, 2013, proposed rule closed on April 8, 2013. HUD received 7 public comments, 5 of which provided comments on the elimination of the Roster requirement. These comments were submitted by the ICC, a housing trade association, a mortgage company, a homebuilder, and an individual.3 Below is a summary of the significant issues pertaining to the Roster raised by these comments, and HUD's responses to these comments.

In response to the general solicitation of public comments, HUD received the following comments and provides the following responses:

Comment: Include CIs as allowed inspectors. One commenter suggested that HUD accept inspections from ICC-certified CIs who have passed the required tests for RCI certification, as well as passed tests in the same disciplines for commercial buildings. The commenter wrote that this change would increase the pool of inspectors from 3,666 (RCIs) to 5,892 (RCIs and CIs), and help avoid confusion as to whether only RCIs meet the requirements of the rule, or whether those certified for both Residential and Commercial Inspection who are certified as Combination Inspectors also meet the requirements of the rule.

HUD Response. HUD has adopted the change suggested by the commenter. The final rule provides that in jurisdictions that do not provide building code enforcement and requisite documentation, the lender must, in order to ensure compliance with FHA requirements, select an RCI or CI certified by the ICC who is licensed or certified as a home inspector in accordance with the applicable state and local requirements. CIs are subject to the same rigorous ICC certification requirements as RCIs and, therefore, their inclusion is consistent with HUD's stated policy goals in accepting inspection performed by RCIs. Further, HUD agrees with the commenter that the change will expand the pool of qualified inspectors and avoid confusion.

Comment: With Limited Number of RCIs, Allow Original Loan Appraiser to Complete Final Inspection. One commenter wrote that due to the limited number of current RCI inspectors, the proposed process will be less efficient and more subjective than HUD anticipated. The commenter wrote that while the use of a building permit/certificate of occupancy may be feasible with existing residences, the timing of these related to new home construction would be problematic. The commenter wrote that with reduced options and precarious timelines, the opportunity for additional costs and closing delays will increase for homeowners. The commenter suggested that HUD allow the original appraiser to complete the final inspection. According to the commenter this is acceptable under Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), United States Department of Agriculture, and United States Department of Veterans Affairs guidelines. The commenter wrote that because mortgage lenders maintain an FHA approved appraiser list, or work with an appraisal management company which does so, the process would be an extension of an efficient and accepted process, which would continue to provide protections for both homebuyers and HUD.

HUD Response. HUD has not revised the rule in response to this comment. As an initial matter, HUD notes that inspections are only required where the local jurisdiction does not provide building code enforcement and documentation. HUD specifically solicited comment on the number of qualified RCIs. Based on the data provided by the ICC, HUD continues to believe there are sufficient number of ICC-certified inspectors to allow for inspections in the limited circumstances contemplated by the rule.4 As discussed in the preamble to the February 6, 2013, proposed rule, HUD believes that the overall effect of removing the Roster will be to increase the number of competent inspectors, since inspectors currently on the Roster will no longer have an advantage of the exclusive market power of inspecting FHA-insured homes. Moreover, HUD is amending the proposed rule to further expand the pool of eligible inspectors to include CIs. In the absence of such ICC-certified inspectors, the lender may obtain an inspection performed by a third party, who is a registered architect, a professional engineer, or a trades person or contractor, and who has met the licensing and bonding requirements of the State in which the property is located.

With respect to the suggestion that HUD allow appraisers to conduct the required inspections, HUD agrees that appraisers have always played a vital role in FHA's mission to provide affordable homeownership by accurately assessing the value of a home. While other Federal agencies may allow appraisers to conduct inspections to determine construction quality, HUD continues to believe that limiting the conduct of required inspections to ICC-certified inspectors and other qualified, licensed and bonded professionals is the best means to safeguard FHA and the Federal taxpayer.

In addition to the general solicitation of public comments on the February 6, 2013, proposed rule, HUD specifically requested comments on two issues.

First, HUD advised that it had been unable to determine the number of jurisdictions for which there may be an absence of RCIs and specifically requested information on this issue. In response, the ICC advised that there are 3,666 RCIs and 2,226 CIs around the country, with nearly every state having at least 4 inspectors certified as RCIs or CIs. Massachusetts, Maine, North Dakota, South Dakota, Rhode Island, and Vermont each have only one certified inspector. However, the ICC said that in each of these states, there are additional individuals possessing three, and sometime four, of the required four underlying certifications to achieve the RCI, or seven or eight of the underlying certifications for the CI. The ICC said it believes that if this proposed requirement is implemented, many eligible inspectors will apply for appropriate certification. The ICC said it believes that there are sufficient numbers in every state to allow for inspectors in all of the 50 states, but that in some cases, nearby out of state travel may be required by the inspector.

In addition to the foregoing issue, HUD specifically sought comment on whether, for jurisdictions for which RCIs are not available, HUD should require the lender, in selecting a non-RCI, albeit an individual licensed and bonded under State law, to select a registered architect, engineer, trades person, or contractor with a minimum of 5 years' experience. HUD did not receive any comments in response to this issue.

Under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant and, therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the order. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) directs executive agencies to analyze regulations that are “outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned.” Executive Order 13563 also directs that where relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives, and to the extent permitted by law, agencies are to identify and consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public.

This rule was determined to be a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (although not an economically significant regulatory action, as provided under section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order). The removal of these regulations is consistent with goals of Executive Order 13563.

The rule does not rise to the level of an economically “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. HUD expects the elimination of the national Inspector Roster to have economic benefits and costs. However, neither the economic costs nor the benefits of the elimination are greater than the $100 million threshold that determines economic significance under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. The preamble to the February 6, 2013, proposed rule at 78 FR 8453-8454, provided a discussion of the anticipated costs and benefits of the regulatory amendments. Please see the below section on the summary of benefits and costs, which summarizes and updates the costs and benefits of the regulatory changes.

Executive Order 13771, entitled “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” was issued on January 30, 2017. This final rule is considered an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this final rule can be found in the rule's economic analysis.

There are two effects of eliminating the FHA Inspector Roster requirement: A reduction in paperwork burden to the Federal Government and potential, but not probable, gains in consumer surplus from enhanced competition.

First, no longer requiring that an inspector be on the Roster creates savings by reducing the administrative costs necessary to maintain the Roster. HUD anticipates cost savings of approximately $62,870. This estimate is based on the following: Savings of $46,350 for elimination of Applications for Fee or Roster Inspector designation forms and copy of state certification (based on 3,090 inspector applications or respondents times a response per respondent times 0.5 burden hours per response times at cost of $30 per hour); savings of $11,520 for elimination of the fielding with inspectors and data input into FHA Connection; and savings of $5,000 for the elimination of maintenance of the Roster database.

Second, relaxing restrictions to entry of inspectors would expand the set of inspectors from which lenders may choose for the inspection of a home where the mortgage is to be insured by FHA. Inspectors currently on the Roster would lose the ability to exploit any market power conveyed by the current Roster requirements.

The market outcome (effect on price, quantity, and quality of service) of eliminating supply restrictions depends upon whether there is excess demand for inspector services. It appears that the Inspector Roster is not a binding restriction. Only a very limited number of FHA loans would be affected by eliminating the Roster. FHA data reveals that the number of FHA-insured properties requiring an inspection by an RCI or other qualified individual where an RCI is unavailable represents a small percentage of total loans. During 2017, only 877 (0.07 percent) out of the 1,233,428 endorsed loans required the use of a Roster inspector. The average cost for Roster inspector services was estimated at $200 in 2016. This fee is not significantly different (and not greater than) the average fee charged by inspectors. Given the small number of loans initially reserved to inspectors from the Roster and the lack of divergence in cost, the cost for inspector service would not be affected. However, an elimination of the Roster could result in a small transfer of business activity away from inspectors on the Roster.

The quality of inspection is not likely to suffer because of the elimination of the Roster. Current industry standards and local regulations are sufficiently rigorous to render HUD's standards redundant. To become an RCI, applicants must undergo a rigorous examination and certification process that is even more robust than the Inspector Roster qualification process. On the rare occasion that an RCI is unavailable in a particular jurisdiction, the professional qualifications and length of experience for other qualified individuals are sufficiently high thresholds to mitigate the concern of inadequate inspections.

The docket file is available for public inspection in the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, please schedule an appointment to review the docket file by calling the Regulation Division at 202-402-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

The information collection requirements contained in this rule have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) and assigned OMB Control Numbers 2502-0538 (Application for Fee or Roster Personnel Designation (form HUD-92563)), and 2502-0189 (pertaining to the Compliance Inspection Report (form HUD-92051) and the Mortgagee's Assurance of Completion (form HUD-92300)). In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule is a deregulatory action taken by HUD that will lower barriers to entry to FHA business by removing redundant professional certifications. As previously noted, an elimination of the Roster could result in a small transfer of business activity away from inspectors on the Roster, but there is no reason to believe this transfer will be significant. There is no detectable wage premium for inspectors on the FHA Roster, and the Roster has been used for less than 0.1 percent of FHA's loans in recent years. Therefore, the undersigned certifies that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

A Finding of No Significant Impact with respect to the environment has been made in accordance with HUD regulations at 24 CFR part 50, which implement section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). The Finding of No Significant Impact is available for public inspection between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays in the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Room 10276, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20410-0500.

Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments or is not required by statute, or the rule preempts State law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order. This rule will not have federalism implications and would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments or preempt State law within the meaning of the Executive Order.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) (UMRA) establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and on the private sector. This rule does not impose any federal mandates on any State, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector, within the meaning of UMRA.

The Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Number for the principal FHA single-family mortgage insurance program is 14.117.

Established by the Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act (Ginnie Mae Charter),1 Ginnie Mae guarantees investors the timely payment of principal and interest on single class mortgage-backed securities (MBS) issued by private lenders and others that are backed by pools of mortgage loans insured or guaranteed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Housing Administration (FHA), U.S Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development (RD), and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH). The Ginnie Mae guaranty, backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government, which Ginnie Mae places on MBS lowers the cost of, and maintains the supply of, mortgage financing for such government-backed loans. The authority for these guaranties is found in section 306(g)(1) of the Ginnie Mae Charter.2 As stated in Ginnie Mae's All Participants Memorandum 18-04, any Ginnie Mae MBS with an issuance date of May 2018 or earlier is not affected by the Act. Further, any refinanced VA mortgage loan that does not meet the seasoning requirement contained in the Act, that was not backing a Ginnie Mae MBS prior to May 24, 2018, is ineligible to serve as MBS collateral.

The “Multiclass Securities Program” is a vehicle that further increases the liquidity of Ginnie Mae MBS and attracts new sources of capital for federally insured or guaranteed loans. Ginnie Mae Multiclass Securities are collateralized by trust assets that consist of direct or indirect interest in certificates with underlying FHA, VA, RD, and PIH mortgage loans (i.e., MBS or previously issued Multiclass Securities). Ginnie Mae Multiclass Securities direct principal and interest payments from the underlying MBS or previously-issued Multiclass Securities to classes (known as tranches) with different principal balances, interest rates, average lives, prepayment characteristics, and final maturities. This enables investors with different investment horizons, risk-reward preferences, and asset-liability management requirements to purchase mortgage securities that are tailored to their needs. The authority for this program is also found in section 306(g)(1) of the Ginnie Mae Charter.

On May 24, 2018, President Trump signed into law the Act.3 Title III of the Act contains several legislative protections for veterans, consumers and homeowners, including section 309, which largely incorporated the “Protecting Veterans from Predatory Lending Act of 2018.” Section 309(b) of the Act amended section 306(g)(1) of the Ginnie Mae Charter 4 to add the following sentence: “The Association may not guarantee the timely payment of principal and interest on a security that is backed by a mortgage insured or guaranteed under chapter 37 of title 38, United States Code,5 and that was refinanced until the later of the date that is 210 days after the date on which the first monthly payment is made on the mortgage being refinanced and the date on which 6 full monthly payments have been made on the mortgage being refinanced.”

This seasoning requirement was designed to deter lenders from encouraging veterans to refinance their VA mortgage loans often and repeatedly. This practice of “churning” led to faster prepayment speeds on the mortgages underlying Ginnie Mae MBS and Multiclass Securities, making these securities less valuable to investors. Increased prepayment speeds means that the underlying loans, and therefore a portion of the related securities, do not stay outstanding, at the agreed upon interest rates, as long as expected. This uncertainty adversely affects the investor expectations, resulting in low prices on the securities and therefore higher coupon rates for MBS and Multiclass Securities. The value to investors of the predictability of Ginnie Mae MBS and Multiclass Securities as opposed to alternatives is one reason, however, that interest rates on mortgage loans insured or guaranteed by VA, FHA, RD and PIH are kept at relatively low interest rates. Accordingly, “churning” was seen as detrimental to veterans not only because those who refinanced often did not realize that the overall refinance costs could outweigh the short-term benefits, but also because overall mortgage rates were higher than they would otherwise be in part because of the adverse impact, in the view of the investors, of higher prepayment speeds on the VA mortgage loans backing the Ginnie Mae MBS and Multiclass Securities.

It is HUD's interpretation that as of the enactment of the Act, any VA refinanced mortgage loan that does not meet the seasoning requirements contained in section 309(b) of the Act is ineligible to serve as collateral for Ginnie Mae MBS. Ginnie Mae MBS guaranteed before the enactment of the Act, that contain VA refinanced mortgage loans that do not meet the seasoning requirements contained in the Act, are unaffected by the Act. For Multiclass Securities, the Act does not prohibit Ginnie Mae from guaranteeing Multiclass Securities where the trust assets consist of direct or indirect interests in Ginnie Mae guaranteed certificates with underlying VA mortgage loans that may not comply with the statutory seasoning requirement. As discussed more fully below, this reading of section 309(b) is supported by a close reading of the relevant statutory language. Further, and as discussed below, a contrary interpretation of section 309(b) of the Act would defeat the provision's purposes of restricting VA loan churning and protecting veterans.

HUD's interpretation is supported by a close reading of the statutory text of the Ginnie Mae Charter, section 309(b) of the Act, and section 309 more broadly.

The language of section 309(b) of the Act differs in significant respect from the long-standing language in the Ginnie Mae Charter. Section 306(g)(1) of the Ginnie Mae Charter refers to the securities that Ginnie Mae is authorized to guarantee as those “backed by a trust or pool composed of mortgages,” language that has long been understood by Congress and HUD to encompass both MBS and Multiclass Securities. See Letter from Nelson Diaz to Dwight P. Robinson (June 27, 1994). However, the language added by section 309(b) of the Act does not use similarly broad language—it refers only to those securities that are “backed by a mortgage.” It is a well-settled principle of statutory interpretation that “the use of different words within the same statutory context strongly suggests that different meanings were intended.” 6 In addition, “a statute should be constructed so that effect is given to all of its provisions, so that no part will be inoperative or superfluous, void or insignificant.” 7 Under these principles, Congress's decision to use only the words “backed by a mortgage,” as compared to “backed by a trust or pool composed of mortgages,” should be given meaning.

To give meaning to the narrower language in section 309(b) of the Act, that provision should be read to reference a narrower class of securities (MBS) than all of the securities long understood to be covered by the broader language of section 306(g) the of Ginnie Mae Charter (both MBS and Multiclass Securities). Had Congress intended section 309(b) of the Act to encompass Multiclass Securities as well as MBS, it would have employed the broader language known to encompass both types of securities—i.e., “backed by a trust or pool composed of mortgages.” Instead, Congress used only the words “backed by a mortgage.” HUD believes that the best way to give that distinction meaning, as required under the case law, is to read the narrower phrase to encompass only those securities that are backed directly by mortgages (i.e., MBS) as opposed to securities that are backed directly by a trust of securities that are ultimately backed by mortgages (i.e., Multiclass Securities).

This reading is supported by nearby statutory language in section 306(g)(3) of the Ginnie Mae Charter. As the Supreme Court has explained, “[t]he plainness or ambiguity of statutory language is determined by reference to the language itself, the specific context in which that language is used, and the broader context of the statute as a whole.” 8 The language of section 306(g)(3) of the Ginnie Mae Charter refers differently to MBS and to Multiclass Securities in a way that supports reading section 309(b) of the Act to apply only to MBS. In sections 306(g)(3)(A) and (B) of the Ginnie Mae Charter, Congress describes MBS as “securities or notes based on or backed by mortgages.” In contrast, in section 306(g)(3)(E) of the Ginnie Mae Charter, Congress refers distinctly to Multiclass Securities as being “backed by a trust or pool of securities or notes guaranteed by [Ginnie Mae].” Put more simply, section 306(g)(3) of the Ginnie Mae Charter describes MBS as securities backed by mortgages and describes Multiclass Securities differently as securities backed by a trust or pool of securities or notes, even though Multiclass Securities ultimately also are backed by mortgages. The narrow language of section 309(b) of the Act —“a security backed by a mortgage”—appears intended to track the description of MBS in section 306(g)(3)(A) and (B) of the Ginnie Mae Charter and not to include Multiclass Securities as described in section 306(g)(3)(E) of the Ginnie Mae Charter.

In addition, this interpretation of section 309(b) of the Act is supported by a holistic reading of section 309. Other provisions in this section refer explicitly to MBS, but none refers to Multiclass Securities. In section 309(c) of the Act, for example, the statute imposes reporting requirements on Ginnie Mae to allow it to monitor the effectiveness of the Act in regards to MBS, but the provision does not reference Multiclass Securities. This strongly implies that MBS were the only securities targeted by Congress in section 309 of the Act, and that section 309(b) of the Act therefore does not apply to Multiclass Securities.

Lastly, this reading is supported by the heading of section 309(b) of the Act—“Loan Seasoning for Ginnie Mae Mortgage-Backed Securities.” The heading refers only to MBS and makes no reference to Multiclass Securities. The Supreme Court has said that “the title of a statute or section can aid in resolving ambiguity in the legislation's text.” 9 Thus, to the extent section 309(b) of the Act is ambiguous, its heading clarifies its limited application to MBS only.

HUD's interpretation of section 309(b) of the Act is also consistent with the purposes of both section 309 of the Act and the Ginnie Mae Charter. A contrary reading would prohibit Ginnie Mae from guaranteeing all new Multiclass Securities ultimately backed by any prohibited mortgage, including Multiclass Securities composed solely of securities lawfully guaranteed prior to enactment of the Act. Prohibiting Ginnie Mae from guaranteeing such securities would harm, not help, veterans and would therefore contravene the purposes of section 309 of the Act and the Ginnie Mae Charter.

1. Anti-Churning. As noted, section 309 of the Act was intended to protect both veterans and investors by discouraging the unfair lending practice of “churning.” By prohibiting Ginnie Mae from guaranteeing MBS containing any loans refinanced in violation of the seasoning requirements, the Act decreases the marketability of these loans and thereby motivates lenders to avoid such practices in the future. By contrast, prohibiting Ginnie Mae's ability to guarantee Multiclass Securities containing MBS that were guaranteed by Ginnie Mae prior to the Act becoming law can have no impact on lender behavior. The lender cannot change the circumstances surrounding the production of a loan securitized and sold prior to the enactment of the Act. Further, it may be unknowable whether the previously guaranteed MBS or previously issued Multiclass Security would comply with section 309(b) of the Act because assuring and tracking compliance with the seasoning requirements in the Act were not requirements for Ginnie Mae securities prior to the Act's enactment. To interpret the prohibition of section 309(b) of the Act to include Multiclass Securities, therefore, is to sanction a measure that does not advance the legislative aim of decreasing the financial motives of lenders to engage in the predatory practices at issue.

2. Protection of Veterans. Interpreting section 309(b) of the Act to prohibit the guarantee of Multiclass Securities composed of trust assets that consist of direct or indirect interests in certificates with underlying VA mortgage loans that were guaranteed prior to the enactment of the statute would also have a negative impact on the liquidity of the Multiclass Securities market, driving up VA mortgage rates and restricting the availability of the VA mortgage loans to the very veterans that the statute was intended to protect.

The Act enacted several legislative changes, including section 309, that were aimed at protecting veterans from predatory lending practices in connection with refinancing activity and preserving the relatively low rates created by Ginnie Mae guarantees without the adverse impact of high prepayment speeds.10 The broader purpose of these provisions is to benefit veterans by providing them with affordable housing. Indeed, section 309(b) of the Act is titled “Protecting Veterans from Predatory Lending.” This is also one of the purposes of the Ginnie Mae Charter, which was amended by section 309(b) of the Act.

Under settled precedent, Section 309(b) of the Act cannot be construed in a way that would frustrate the purposes of either Section 309 of the Act or the Ginnie Mae Charter. The Supreme Court has instructed that courts “cannot interpret federal statutes to negate their own stated purposes.” 11 Moreover, a statutory provision that may seem “ambiguous in isolation is often clarified by the remainder of the statutory scheme . . . because only one of the permissible meanings produces a substantive effect that is compatible with the rest of the law.” 12

But to conclude that section 309(b) of the Act precludes the guarantee of Multiclass Securities collateralized by MBS and Multiclass Securities previously and lawfully issued by Ginnie Mae also would frustrate the purpose of these statutes. Precluding existing MBS and Multiclass Securities—where it is now difficult, if not practically impossible, to assess compliance with Section 309(b) of the Act would potentially “orphan” billions of dollars worth of outstanding Ginnie Mae securities that were validly guaranteed under prior law. This is because they never could be incorporated into Multiclass Securities after the enactment of the Act. This would frustrate the reasonable expectations of Ginnie Mae investors who purchased Ginnie Mae MBS at prices that explicitly contemplated their ultimate inclusion in Multiclass Securities. Because these securities would then decrease in value, the end result would be increased interest rates for veterans. Given that this would harm, rather than help, veterans, it is difficult to imagine that Congress intended to cause significant disruption to the Multiclass Securities program beyond what was needed to stop the undesirable lending practices on a prospective basis. Further, restricting the inclusion of existing MBS and previously issued Multiclass Securities as eligible collateral would not decrease the amount of risk to Ginnie Mae and the investors since the certificates are already guaranteed.

For the reasons described above, it is HUD's interpretation that as of the enactment of the Act, any VA refinanced mortgage loan that does not meet the seasoning requirements contained in section 309(b) the Act is ineligible to serve as collateral for Ginnie Mae MBS. Ginnie Mae MBS guaranteed before the enactment of the Act, that contain VA refinanced mortgage loans that do not meet the seasoning requirements contained in the Act, are unaffected by the Act. For Multiclass Securities, the Act permits Ginnie Mae to guarantee Multiclass Securities even where the trust assets consist of direct or indirect interest in certificates guaranteed by Ginnie Mae without regard to whether the underlying VA mortgage loans are in compliance with the seasoning requirements in section 309(b) of the Act.

This interpretive rule represents HUD's interpretation of section 309(b) of the Act and, as such, is exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.13 Nevertheless, HUD is interested in receiving feedback from the public on this interpretation, specifically with respect to clarity and scope.

On May 7, 2018, OSHA published a DFR in the Federal Register (83 FR 19936) amending the text of the beryllium standard for general industry to clarify OSHA's intent with respect to certain terms in the standard, including the definition of Beryllium Work Area (BWA), the definition of emergency, and the meaning of the terms dermal contact and beryllium contamination. It also clarifies OSHA's intent with respect to provisions for disposal and recycling and with respect to provisions that the agency intends to apply only where skin can be exposed to materials containing at least 0.1% beryllium by weight. Interested parties had until June 6, 2018, to submit comments on the DFR.

The agency stated that it would publish another document confirming the effective date of the DFR if it received no significant adverse comments. OSHA received seven comments in the record from Materion Brush, Inc., Mead Metals Inc., National Association of Manufacturers, Airborn, Inc., Edison Electric Institute, and two private citizens (Document IDs OSHA-2018-0003-0004 thru OSHA-2018-0003-0010). The seven submissions contained comments that were either supportive of the DFR or were considered not to be significant adverse comments. (Document IDs OSHA-2018-0003-0004 thru OSHA-2018-0003-0010). Three of these submissions also contained comments that were outside the scope of the DFR and OSHA is not considering the portions of those submissions that are outside the scope (OSHA-2018-0003-0004 thru OSHA-2018-0003-0006).

OSHA has determined this DFR will maintain safety and health protections for workers while reducing employers' compliance burdens. As the agency did not receive any significant adverse comments, OSHA is hereby confirming that the DFR published on May 7, 2018, will become effective on July 6, 2018.

This action does not add or change any information collection requirements subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320. The PRA defines a collection of information as the obtaining, causing to be obtained, soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to third parties or the public of facts or opinions by or for an agency regardless of form or format. See 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). While not affected by this rulemaking, the Department has cleared information collections related to occupational exposure to beryllium standards—general industry, 29 CFR 1910.1024; construction, 29 CFR 1926.1124; and shipyards, 29 CFR 1915.1024—under control number 1218-0267. The existing approved information collections are unchanged by this rulemaking.

In the DFR published on May 7, 2018, OSHA provided 30 days for the public to comment on whether approved information collections would be affected by this rulemaking. The agency did not receive any comments on paperwork in response to that notice.

Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this direct final rule. The agency is issuing this rule under Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), Secretary of Labor's Order 5-2007 (72 FR 31159), and 29 CFR part 1911.

Pursuant to the authority granted in 33 U.S.C. 1605, the DoN amends 32 CFR part 706.

This amendment provides notice that the DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law), under authority delegated by the Secretary of the Navy, has certified that USS PAUL IGNATIUS (DDG 117) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with the following specific provisions of 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship: Annex I, paragraph 2(f)(i), pertaining to the placement of the masthead light or lights above and clear of all other lights and obstructions; Annex I, paragraph 2(f)(ii), pertaining to the vertical placement of task lights; Rule 23(a), the requirement to display a forward and aft masthead light underway, and Annex I, paragraph 3(a), pertaining to the location of the forward masthead light in the forward quarter of the ship, and the horizontal distance between the forward and after masthead lights; and Annex I, paragraph 3(c), pertaining to placement of task lights not less than two meters from the fore and aft centerline of the ship in the athwartship direction. The DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has also certified that the lights involved are located in closest possible compliance with the applicable 72 COLREGS requirements.

Moreover, it has been determined, in accordance with 32 CFR parts 296 and 701, that publication of this amendment for public comment prior to adoption is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on technical findings that the placement of lights on this vessel in a manner differently from that prescribed herein will adversely affect the vessel's ability to perform its military functions.

The Coast Guard will enforce the following special local regulations listed in 33 CFR part 100, Safety of Life on Navigable Waters, on the following dates and times:

(1) § 100.914 Trenton Rotary Roar on the River, Trenton, MI. This special local regulation will be enforced from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. each day from July 20 through July 22, 2018.

(2) § 100.915 St. Clair River Classic Offshore Race, St. Clair, MI. This special local regulation will be enforced from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. each day from July 23 through July 29, 2018.

In accordance with § 100.901, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within these regulated areas is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard patrol commander (PATCOM). The PATCOM may restrict vessel operation within the regulated area to vessels having particular operating characteristics.

Vessels permitted to enter this regulated area must operate at a no-wake speed and in a manner that will not endanger race participants or any other craft.

The PATCOM may direct the anchoring, mooring, or movement of any vessel within this regulated area. A succession of sharp, short signals by whistle or horn from vessels patrolling the area under the direction of the PATCOM shall serve as a signal to stop. Vessels so signaled shall stop and shall comply with the orders of the PATCOM. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, a Notice of Violation for failure to comply, or both.

If it is deemed necessary for the protection of life and property, the PATCOM may terminate the marine event or the operation of any vessel within the regulated area.

In accordance with the general regulations in § 100.35 of this part, the Coast Guard will patrol the regatta area under the direction of a designated Coast Guard Patrol Commander (PATCOM). The PATCOM may be contacted on Channel 16 (156.8 MHz) by the call sign “Coast Guard Patrol Commander.”

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.928, vessels transiting within the regulated area shall travel at a no-wake speed and remain vigilant for event participants and safety craft. Additionally, vessels shall yield right-of-way for event participants and event safety craft and shall follow directions given by the Coast Guard's on-scene representative or by event representatives during the event.

The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Detroit is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Detroit to act on his behalf. The on-scene representative of the Captain of the Port Detroit will be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated on scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

The rules in this section shall not apply to vessels participating in the event or to government vessels patrolling the regulated area in the performance of their assigned duties.

This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.35 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). If the Captain of the Port determines that any of these special local regulations need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this document, he may suspend such enforcement and notify the public of the suspension via a Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

The Burlington County Bridge Commission, owner and operator of the S.R. 543 (Riverside-Delanco) Bridge across the Rancocas Creek, mile 1.3, at Burlington, NJ, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating schedule to accommodate routine maintenance.

Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will require a 30 minutes advanced notice to open Monday through Friday, from 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., on June 28, 2018, to August 2, 2018. The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.745.

The Rancocas Creek is mostly used by recreational vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully considered the restrictions with waterway users in publishing this temporary deviation.

Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in the closed position. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by this temporary deviation.

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

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the event sponsor did not submit notice to the Coast Guard with sufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest by inhibiting the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels form the hazards associated with a fireworks display.

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 because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the rule's objectives of enhancing safety of life on the navigable waters and protection of persons and vessels in vicinity of the fireworks display.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that a fireworks display presents significant risks to the public safety and property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks display takes place.

This rule establishes a safety zone on July 4, 2018, from 9:45 p.m. until 10:45 p.m. with a rain date of July 5, 2018 from 9:45 p.m. until 10:45 p.m. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the Buffalo River, Buffalo, NY starting at position 42°52′34.0″ N, 078°52′54.7″ W then East to 42°52′36.3″ N, 078°52′48.6″ W then South to 42°52′32.8″ N, 078°52′45.4″ W then West to 42°52′30.0″ N, 078°52′51.9″ W then returning to the point of origin.

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene 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 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 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

This regulatory action determination is based on the conclusion that this rule is not a significant regulatory action. 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 zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

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 Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, 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 establishes a temporary safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

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 Acronyms APA Administrative Procedure Act COTP U.S. Coast Guard Captain on the Port DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking PATCOM U.S. Coast Guard Patrol Commander U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule. Since the Coast Guard received final details of this event on June 25, 2018, notice and comment procedures would be impracticable in this instance.

For similar reasons as those stated above, 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.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port (COTP) San Francisco has determined that potential hazards associated with the planned fireworks display on July 4, 2018, will be a safety concern for anyone within a 100-foot radius of the fireworks barge and anyone within a 1,000-foot radius of the fireworks firing site. This rule is needed to protect spectators, vessels, and other property from hazards associated with pyrotechnics.

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone during the loading and transit of the fireworks barge, until after completion of the fireworks display. During the loading of the pyrotechnics onto the fireworks barge, scheduled to take place from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on July 4, 2018, at Pier 50 in San Francisco, CA, the safety zone will encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 100 feet.

The fireworks barge will remain at Pier 50 until the start of the transit to the display location. Towing of the barge from Pier 50 to the display location is scheduled to take place from 3:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on July 4, 2018, where it will remain until the conclusion of the fireworks displays.

At 9:00 p.m. on July 4, 2018, 30 minutes prior to the commencement of the 20-minute fireworks display, the safety zone will increase in size and encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 1,000 feet in approximate position 38°02′49″ N, 122°10′02″ W (NAD 83) for the City of Benicia Fourth of July Fireworks Display. The safety zone shall terminate at 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2018.

The effect of the temporary safety zone are to restrict navigation in the vicinity of the fireworks loading, transit, and firing site. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the restricted area. This regulation is needed to keep spectators and vessels away from the immediate vicinity of the fireworks firing site to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and transiting vessels.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 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 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

This regulatory action determination is based on the limited duration and narrowly tailored geographic area of the safety zone. 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. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: owners and operators of waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing, if these facilities or vessels are in the vicinity of the safety zone at times when this zone is being enforced. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: (i) This rule will encompass only a small portion of the waterway for a limited period of time, and (ii) 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 section.

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

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

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

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, 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 of limited size and duration. It is categorically excluded from further review under Categorical Exclusion L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

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 CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register MM Mile marker NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

On April 4, 2018, Geaux Pyro, notified the Coast Guard that it would be conducting a fireworks display from 8 p.m. through 8:30 p.m. on July 4, 2018, for a July 4th celebration. The fireworks are to be launched from a barge on the Tchefuncte River, at approximate position 30°24′11.63″ N, 090°09′17.39″ W, in front of the Madisonville Town Hall. In response, on April 17, 2018, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Safety Zone; Lower Tchefuncte River, Madisonville, LA” (83 FR 16815). 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 17, 2018, we received no comments.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks to be used in this July 4, 2018 display will be a safety concern for anyone within a 100-yard radius of the fireworks barge. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment before, during, and after the scheduled event.

As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published April 17, 2018. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 8 p.m. through 9 p.m. on July 4, 2018. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters of the Tchefuncte River within 100-yards of a barge at approximate position 30°24′11.63″ N, 090°09′17.39″ W, in front of the Madisonville Town Hall in Madisonville, LA. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 8 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. fireworks display. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector New Orleans.

Vessels requiring entry into this safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or 67 or by telephone at (504) 365-2200. Persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or a designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public through Broadcast Notices to Mariners of any changes in the planned schedule.

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 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

This regulatory action determination is based on the size and duration of the temporary safety zone. This temporary safety zone is for only one hour and will only encompass a 100-yard section on the Tchefuncte River. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM) 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 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 IV.A above, this proposed 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 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 Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, 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 proposed rule involves a safety zone lasting one hour that would prohibit entry within a 100-yard radius of a barge at approximate position of 30°24′11.63″ N, 090°09′17.39″ W, on the Tchefuncte River. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

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:

The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone during the loading and transit of the fireworks support pontoon vessel and fireworks barge, until completion of the fireworks display. From 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. on July 3, 2018, the fireworks support pontoon vessel will be loaded at Ivgid Boat Launch in the vicinity of Incline Beach, near Incline Village, NV and will transit from Ivgid Boat Launch to the display location at approximate position 39°14′13″ N, 119°57′01″ W (NAD 83), the safety zone will encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks support pontoon vessel within a radius of 100 feet. From 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on July 3, 2018 the fireworks barge will be loaded at approximate position 39°14′13″ N, 119°57′ 01″ W (NAD 83) where it will remain until the commencement of the fireworks display. Upon the commencement of the 18-minute fireworks display, scheduled to start at approximately 9:30 p.m. on July 4, 2018, the safety zone will increase in size to encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barges within a radius of 1,000 feet at approximate position 39°14′13″ N, 119°57′01″ W (NAD 83) for the Red, White, and Tahoe Blue Fireworks, Incline Village, NV in 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 19. This safety zone will be in effect from 7:30 a.m. on July 3, 2018 until 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2018.

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

This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1191 and 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with extensive advance notification of the safety zone and its enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners.

If the Captain of the Port determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice of enforcement, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans 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)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this safety zone by July 12, 2018 and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.

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. Delaying the effective date of this rule would be contrary to the public interest because immediate action is necessary to respond to potential hazards associated with the fireworks display.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with a fireworks display on July 12, 2018, will be a safety concern for anyone within a one-mile stretch of the Lower Mississippi River. This rule is necessary to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waterway before, during, and after the fireworks display.

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 8:45 p.m. through 9:45 p.m. on July 12, 2018. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the Lower Mississippi River between mile marker (MM) 95.7 and MM 96.7, above Head of Passes. The duration of the zone is intended to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters while the fireworks display is being set up and launched. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector New Orleans.

Vessels requiring entry into this safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or 67 or by telephone at (504) 365-2200. Persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the enforcement times and date for this safety zone through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs) as appropriate.

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 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. This safety zone will restrict traffic on a one-mile portion of the Lower Mississippi River for one hour on one evening. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a 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 temporary 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 Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, 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 only one hour that will prohibit entry between mile marker (MM) 95.7 and MM 96.7 on the Lower Mississippi River, above Head of Passes, before, during and after a fireworks display. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L(60)a of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

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 Acronyms APA Administrative Procedure Act COTP U.S. Coast Guard Captain on the Port DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking PATCOM U.S. Coast Guard Patrol Commander U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule. Since the Coast Guard received notice of this event on May 24, 2018, notice and comment procedures would be impracticable in this instance.

For similar reasons as those stated above, 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.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port (COTP) San Francisco has determined that potential hazards associated with the planned fireworks display on July 4, 2018 will be a safety concern for anyone within a 100-foot radius of the fireworks barges and anyone within a 700-foot radius of the fireworks firing sites. This rule is needed to protect spectators, vessels, and other property from hazards associated with pyrotechnics.

This rule establishes temporary safety zones during the loading and transit of the fireworks barge, until after completion of the fireworks display. During the loading of the pyrotechnics onto the fireworks barges, scheduled to take place from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on July 3, 2018 and from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on July 4, 2018 at Pier 50 in San Francisco, CA, the safety zones will encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barges within a radius of 100 feet.

The fireworks barges will remain at Pier 50 until the start of the transit to the display locations. Towing of the barges from Pier 50 to the display locations is scheduled to take place from 7:30 p.m. to 8:15 p.m. on July 4, 2018, where they will remain until the conclusion of the fireworks display.

At 9:00 p.m. on July 4, 2018, 30 minutes prior to the commencement of the 30-minute fireworks displays, the safety zones will increase in size and encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barges within a radius of 700 feet in approximate positions 37°48′49″ N, 122°24′46″ W and 37°48′45″ N, 122°25′39″ W (NAD 83) for the San Francisco Fourth of July Fireworks Display. The safety zones shall terminate at 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2018.

The effect of the temporary safety zones are to restrict navigation in the vicinity of the fireworks loading, transit, and firing sites. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the restricted areas. These regulations are needed to keep spectators and vessels away from the immediate vicinity of the fireworks firing sites to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and transiting vessels.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 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 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

This regulatory action determination is based on the limited duration and narrowly tailored geographic area of the safety zones. Although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by the safety zones, 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 zones 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. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: Owners and operators of waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing, if these facilities or vessels are in the vicinity of the safety zone at times when this zone is being enforced. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: (i) This rule will encompass only a small portion of the waterway for a limited period of time, and (ii) the maritime public will be advised in advance of these safety zones 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 section.

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

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

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

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, 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 safety zones of limited size and duration. It is categorically excluded from further review under Categorical Exclusion L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

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:

The Coast Guard will enforce a Safety Zone; Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone listed in 33 CFR 165.939 for the following events:

(1) Boldt Castle 4th of July Fireworks, Heart Island, NY; The safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.939(a)(1) will be enforced from 8:45 p.m. to 10:45 p.m. on July 4, 2018.

(2) Clayton Chamber of Commerce Fireworks, Calumet Island, NY; The safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.939(a)(2) will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 3, 2018.

(3) Tom Graves Memorial Fireworks; The safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.939(a)(13) will be enforced from 10:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 3, 2018.

Pursuant to 33 CFR 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within a safety zone during an enforcement period is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated representative. Those seeking permission to enter a safety zone may request permission from the Captain of Port Buffalo via channel 16, VHF-FM. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter a safety zone shall obey the directions of the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated representative. While within a safety zone, all vessels shall operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course.

This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.939 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. If the Captain of the Port Buffalo determines that a safety zone need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the respective safety zone.

I. Table of Acronyms APA Administrative Procedure Act COTP U.S. Coast Guard Captain on the Port DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking PATCOM U.S. Coast Guard Patrol Commander U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule. Since the Coast Guard received final details of this event on June 25, 2018, notice and comment procedures would be impracticable in this instance.

For similar reasons as those stated above, 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.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port (COTP) San Francisco has determined that potential hazards associated with the planned fireworks display on July 4, 2018, will be a safety concern for anyone within a 100-foot radius of the fireworks barge and anyone within a 420-foot radius of the fireworks firing site. This rule is needed to protect spectators, vessels, and other property from hazards associated with pyrotechnics.

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone during the loading and transit of the fireworks barge, until after completion of the fireworks display. During the loading of the pyrotechnics onto the fireworks barge, scheduled to take place from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on July 4, 2018, at Mare Island Waterfront in Vallejo, CA, the safety zone will encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 100 feet.

The fireworks barge will remain at Mare Island Waterfront until the start of the transit to the display location. Towing of the barge from Mare Island Waterfront to the display location is scheduled to take place from 8:50 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on July 4, 2018, where it will remain until the conclusion of the fireworks displays.

At 9:00 p.m. on July 4, 2018, 30 minutes prior to the commencement of the 18-minute fireworks display, the safety zone will increase in size and encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 420 feet in approximate position 38°06′03″ N, 122°16′00″ W (NAD 83) for the City of Vallejo Fourth of July Fireworks Display. The safety zone shall terminate at 10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2018.

The effect of the temporary safety zone are to restrict navigation in the vicinity of the fireworks loading, transit, and firing site. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the restricted area. This regulation is needed to keep spectators and vessels away from the immediate vicinity of the fireworks firing site to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and transiting vessels.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 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 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

This regulatory action determination is based on the limited duration and narrowly tailored geographic area of the safety zone. 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. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: Owners and operators of waterfront facilities, commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing, if these facilities or vessels are in the vicinity of the safety zone at times when this zone is being enforced. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: (i) This rule will encompass only a small portion of the waterway for a limited period of time, and (ii) 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 section.

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

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

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

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, 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 of limited size and duration. It is categorically excluded from further review under Categorical Exclusion L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

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 CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register MM Mile marker 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)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this safety zone by July 21, 2018 and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.

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. Delaying the effective date of this rule is contrary to the public interest because immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with this boat race.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with a boat race on July 21, 2018, will be a safety concern for anyone within a one-mile section of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. Possible hazards include risks of injury or death from near or actual contact among participant vessels and mariners traversing through the safety zone. This rule is necessary to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment during the race.

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 11:30 a.m. through 4 p.m. on July 21, 2018. This zone will encompass all navigable waters of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway between mile markers (MMs) 12 and 13 west of the Harvey Locks in Lafitte, LA. The duration of the zone is intended to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment during the race and will include breaks and opportunity for vessels to transit through the regulated area.

No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector New Orleans. Vessels requiring entry into this safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or 67 or by telephone at (504) 365-2200.

A designated representative may be a Patrol Commander (PATCOM). The PATCOM may be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The PATCOM may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) by the call sign “PATCOM”. The “official patrol vessels” consist of any Coast Guard, state, or local law enforcement and sponsor provided vessels assigned or approved by the COTP or a designated representative to patrol the zone. All persons and vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels are considered spectators.

Spectator vessels desiring to transit the zone may do so only with prior approval of the COTP or a designated representative and when so directed by that officer must be operated at a minimum safe navigation speed in a manner that will not endanger any other vessels. No spectator vessel shall anchor, block, loiter, or impede the through transit of official patrol vessels in the zone during the effective date and times, unless cleared for entry by or through the COTP or a designated representative. Any spectator vessel may anchor outside the zone, but may not anchor in, block, or loiter in a navigable channel. Spectator vessels may be moored to a waterfront facility within the zone in such a way that they shall not interfere with the progress of the event. Such mooring must be complete at least 30 minutes prior to the establishment of the zone and remain moored through the duration of the event.

The COTP or a designated representative may forbid and control the movement of all vessels in the zone. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol vessel, a vessel shall come to an immediate stop and comply with the directions given. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the zone, citation for failure to comply, or both.

The COTP or a designated representative may terminate the operation of any vessel at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of life or property. The COTP or a designated representative will terminate enforcement of the safety zone at the conclusion of the event.

The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the enforcement periods of this safety zone through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs) as appropriate.

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 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

This regulatory action determination is based on the size and duration of the temporary safety zone. This temporary safety zone covers a one-mile section of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway for only four and a half hours on one day. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a BNMs via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, breaks may provide an opportunity for vessels to transit through the safety 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 temporary 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 Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, 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 only four and a half hours on one day that will prohibit entry within a one-mile stretch of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

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:

Ambient air contains a variety of pollutants, including particulate matter (PM). Airborne PM can be comprised of either solid or liquid particles, or a complex mixture of particles in both solid and liquid form. The most common airborne PM constituents include sulfate (SO4); nitrate (NO3); ammonium; elemental carbon; organic mass; and inorganic material, referred to as “crustal” material, which can include metals, dust, soil and other trace elements. PM2.5 includes “primary” particles, which are directly emitted into the air by a variety of sources, and “secondary” particles, that are formed in the atmosphere as a result of reactions between precursor pollutants.

Human health effects associated with long- or short-term exposure to PM2.5 include premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease (as indicated by increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits) and development of chronic respiratory disease.

On December 14, 2012, EPA revised the primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS to provide increased protection of public health from fine particle pollution (the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS). 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013). In that action, EPA strengthened the primary annual PM2.5 standard, lowering the level from 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) to 12.0 mg/m3. The 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS is attained when the 3-year average of the annual arithmetic mean monitored values does not exceed 12.0 mg/m3. See 40 CFR 50.18.

On January 15, 2015 (80 FR 2206), EPA published area designations, as required by CAA section 107(d)(1), for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Therein, EPA identified as “nonattainment” areas that were then violating the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS based on quality-assured, certified air quality monitoring data from 2011 to 2013 or that contributed to a violation of the NAAQS in a nearby area. EPA designated the Delaware County and Lebanon County nonattainment areas as moderate nonattainment for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, effective April 15, 2015. See 40 CFR 81.339.

Under section 172(c)(3) of the CAA, Pennsylvania is required to submit a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions from all sources (point, nonpoint, nonroad, and onroad) of the relevant pollutants, in each nonattainment area. EPA's “Provisions for Implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS” (or PM implementation rule), at 40 CFR part 51, subpart Z, sets criteria for which pollutants are to be included by states in the required base year emission inventory. This PM inventory must include direct PM2.5 emissions, separately reported PM2.5 filterable and condensable emissions, and emissions of the PM2.5 precursors. 40 CFR 51.1008.

On May 5, 2017, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted a formal SIP revision consisting of the 2011 base year emissions inventory for the Delaware County nonattainment area for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. On September 25, 2017, PADEP submitted to EPA a formal revision consisting of the 2011 base year emission inventory for the Lebanon County nonattainment area for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

The base year emissions inventories prepared by PADEP use 2011 as the base year for planning purposes. They include direct PM2.5 emissions, as well as PM2.5 filterable and condensable emissions, and emissions of the scientific PM2.5 precursors. PADEP reported actual annual emissions of directly-emitted PM2.5 emissions (PM2.5 PRI), as well as separately reported PM2.5 filterable and condensable particulate matter (PM CON) emissions. PM CON is matter that exists as a vapor at stack conditions, but becomes a solid or liquid upon exit of the stack. PADEP's base year inventories for these areas also include directly-emitted, primary particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10 PRI), emissions precursors that contribute to secondary formation of PM2.5, including sulfur dioxides (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and ammonia (NH3) emissions.

Table 1 summarizes the 2011 emission inventory by source sector for each pollutant or pollutant precursor for the Delaware County 2012 annual PM2.5 nonattainment area, expressed as annual emissions in tons per year (tpy).

Table 2 summarizes the 2011 emission inventory by source sector for each pollutant or pollutant precursor for the Lebanon County 2012 annual PM2.5 nonattainment area, expressed as annual emissions in tons per year.

Stationary point sources are large, stationary, and identifiable sources of emissions that release pollutants into the atmosphere. PADEP extracted data for PM2.5 source emissions from the 2011 NEI v2, which receives input from each state's annual inventory estimates.

Area sources are stationary, nonpoint sources that are too small and numerous to be inventoried individually. Area sources are inventoried at the county level and aggregated with like categories. They are typically estimated through use of emission factors combined with activity factor estimates for each source category, adjusted to reflect emission control efficiency, emission control rule effectiveness, and rule penetration.

Onroad sources of emissions include motor vehicles operated on public roadways. PADEP estimates onroad emissions using EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) model, version MOVES2014, coupled with vehicle miles of travel activity levels generated by PADEP or local transportation authorities.

Nonroad sources are mobile, internal combustion powered emission sources other than highway motor vehicles. Examples include lawn and garden equipment, recreational vehicles, construction and agricultural equipment, and industrial equipment. Nonroad mobile source emissions from different source categories are calculated using various methodologies, primarily by use of EPA's MOVES NONROAD emissions model or from EPA's National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM).

EPA reviewed Pennsylvania's 2011 base year emission inventory submissions including results, procedures, and methodologies for the Delaware County and Lebanon County nonattainment areas and found them to be acceptable and approvable under sections 110 and 172(c)(3) of the CAA. EPA prepared a Technical Support Document (TSD) for each of the Delaware County and Lebanon County nonattainment areas in support of this rulemaking. The TSDs are available in the docket for this action, online at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0423.

On May 3, 2018 (83 FR 19476), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, proposing approval of both the Delaware and Lebanon County 2011 base year emission inventory SIP revisions for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The rationale for EPA's proposed action is explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. EPA received three comments on our May 3, 2018 NPR proposing to approve Pennsylvania's May 5, 2017 and September 25, 2017 SIP submittals. All comments received were not specific to this action, and thus are not addressed here.

EPA is approving Pennsylvania's May 5, 2017 and September 25, 2017 SIP revisions, which are base year emission inventories for the Delaware County and Lebanon County 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP as the revisions are in accordance with requirements in CAA section 110 generally and section 172(c)(3) specifically.

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

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

• is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 4, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action to approve base year emission inventories for the Delaware and Lebanon County nonattainment areas for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

The DMNFR nonattainment area includes Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Douglas and Jefferson Counties, and portions of Larimer and Weld Counties. See 40 CFR 81.306. The area was designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS effective July 20, 2012 (77 FR 30088, May 21, 2012) and reclassified as a Moderate ozone nonattainment area on May 4, 2016 (81 FR 26697; see 40 CFR 81.306). Moderate areas are required to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS by no later than 6 years after the effective date of designation, which for the DMNFR nonattainment area is July 20, 2018. See 40 CFR 51.903.

On April 6, 2018, 83 FR 14807, the EPA proposed approval of certain revisions to Colorado's SIP submitted to the EPA on May 5, 2013, and May 31, 2017. Specifically, we proposed approval of Colorado's 2017 attainment demonstration for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In addition, we proposed approval of the motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEB) contained in the State's 2017 submittal. We also proposed approval of all other aspects of the 2017 submittal, except for certain area source categories and major source RACT, which we will be acting on at a later date. We proposed approval of the revisions to Colorado's Reg. 7 and 11, except for Sections X.E and XIX of Reg. 7, which we will be acting on at a later date. We proposed approval of the revisions to Colorado Reg. 7 Section XII from the State's May 5, 2013 submittal.

The factual and legal background for this action is discussed in detail in our April 6, 2018 proposed approval. 83 FR 14807. The proposal provides a detailed description of the revisions and the rationale for the EPA's proposed actions.

We received nineteen comments during the public comment period. After reviewing the comments, the EPA has determined that sixteen of the comments are outside the scope of our proposed action or fail to identify any material issue necessitating a response. We received two comments supporting our proposal to approve the DMNFR moderate nonattainment area attainment demonstration and related revisions, and one adverse comment. Below is a summary of the material comments and the EPA's responses.

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) stated that “Colorado supports EPA's proposal to approve the DMNFR moderate nonattainment area attainment demonstration and many of the related revisions.” The State further requested that the EPA delay taking action on the combustion adjustment and tuning work practice requirements in Reg. 7, Section XVI.D, due to “Colorado's ongoing efforts to further establish RACT for combustion sources on a categorical basis.” Colorado stated that it anticipates submitting to the EPA additional RACT standards for combustion equipment in Summer 2019, and requested that the EPA delay action on Reg. 7, Section XVI.D revisions from the May 31, 2017 submittal so that the Agency “can incorporate and approve Colorado's RACT standards for combustion equipment all at once.”

Response: The Agency acknowledges the State's support for this action. We agree with the request that we refrain from acting on Reg. 7, Section XVI.D of Colorado's May 31, 2017 submittal, which established RACT as a work practice for combustion equipment at major sources of nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions. In our notice of proposed rulemaking, we proposed to approve all of Reg. 7, Section XVI, but explained that we would be acting on Colorado's RACT demonstration for major sources in a future rulemaking and identified provisions for which we were taking no action on at the time (see sections H and N of the proposed rulemaking). The State's desire to incorporate Section XVI.D into its anticipated combustion equipment RACT submission is reasonable, and because Colorado did not rely on any emission reductions from control requirements in Section XVI.D in its 2017 modeling analysis, we are able to act on this revision in a separate action. We, therefore, agree with the State's comment and will act on revisions to Reg. 7, XVI.D from the May 31, 2017 submittal at a later time.

The comment described the approval of the State's revised SIP as “a necessary step” that “will hold owners and operators more accountable for their actions,” and cited several specific provisions as beneficial. The commenter urged future action on the changes made to Reg. 7, Sections X and section XIX, and also urged “every revision and action” to meet the ozone standard.

Response: The EPA agrees that the SIP provisions we are approving, which will be enforceable as a matter of federal law, are necessary steps to comply with the CAA and protect air quality. We are taking no action in this final rule on the State submissions concerning Reg. No. 7, Sections X.E. and XIX, but do intend to act on them in a later rulemaking. Further, we will continue our ongoing work to assist the State in its development of measures to improve air quality.

The comment stated that the “EPA must disapprove the attainment designation [sic; rightly “demonstration”] because the N. Front Range nonattainment area did not attain by the attainment deadline” and that the “EPA must disapprove the attainment demonstration because it was demonstrable [sic] wrong.” The comment said that “EPA has used the excuse of ignoring ozone values if the comment period or decision is before the May 1 deadline for certifying data” and that the time the comment was submitted was after May 1. The comment also explained that “EPA uses the exceptional event provision as another excuse. However, in Table 1 [from the commenter], which is generated from data from EPA's Air Quality System (AQS), we have excluded exceptional events even though Colorado's claims of exceptional events are not valid.”

Response: We do not agree with the commenter's argument that the EPA should disapprove the attainment demonstration because the area did not attain by the attainment deadline, or with the commenter's assertions concerning exceptional events and the timing of the submission.

Colorado has satisfied the legal and regulatory criteria for approving attainment demonstration SIPs. An attainment demonstration uses photochemical grid modeling to show that SIP controls are sufficient to reduce predicted ambient ozone levels to a level at or below the standard, assuming identical meteorology in the baseline and future (modeled) years. As explained in section IV.D and E of the proposed rulemaking, to predict future ozone levels the modeled attainment demonstration uses a baseline design value derived from historical data (in this case 2009-2013), historical meteorological data from the baseline period, emission inventories representing the baseline design value period, and modeled reductions in emissions based on SIP control measures. The attainment demonstration is not required to identically match actual monitored ozone levels for the future years described in the model.1 Rather, it is intended to assess whether SIP controls are adequate to reduce ambient ozone to a level at or below the NAAQS by the attainment date, and such an assessment is based on modeling. The modeled attainment demonstration can be an approvable SIP element, even if actual monitored data do not show attainment.

Applying this standard, Colorado's attainment demonstration qualifies for EPA approval. As described in the 2008 Ozone Implementation Rule (80 FR 12292), “[t]o demonstrate attainment, the modeling results for the nonattainment area must predict that emissions reductions implemented by the beginning of the last full ozone season preceding the attainment date will result in ozone concentrations that meet the level of the standard” (80 FR 12270, March 6, 2015). We find the attainment demonstration submitted on May 31, 2017, adequate to meet this requirement.

The EPA acknowledges that 2014-2016 and 2015-2017 monitored design values in the Denver nonattainment area violate the 2008 ozone NAAQS, regardless of whether all data are used, or whether instead, potential exceptional event data (which have not been acted on by the EPA) are removed. But under the CAA, a determination of whether an area has failed to attain is a separate action entirely from the review of an attainment demonstration SIP. The EPA's SIP review occurs under CAA section 110(k), 42 U.S.C. 7410(k), while a determination of whether an area has failed to attain is governed by CAA section 181(b)(2), 42 U.S.C. 7511(b)(2). Under section 181(b)(2), the EPA must determine whether an ozone nonattainment area has attained the applicable NAAQS “[w]ithin 6 months following the applicable attainment date (including any extension thereof).” (Emphasis added.) Here, the applicable attainment date is still in the future: July 20, 2018. After that date, the EPA will analyze the pertinent information and determine whether the DMNFR nonattainment area has attained the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date in accordance with section 181(b)(2). In the event that the EPA determines that the area failed to attain based on certified air quality data, the DMNFR nonattainment area may be reclassified to Serious by operation of law, and would then be subject to a number of Serious area attainment planning and control requirements, including developing and submitting a new attainment demonstration.

In addition, it is possible that Colorado will request and receive an extension of the attainment date if that is required, as is envisioned in section 181(b)(2). The CAA allows for up to two attainment date extensions, if the fourth maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration in the attainment year (2017 in this case) is below the level of the standard.2 Thus, a nonattainment area may be able to attain the NAAQS by the extended attainment date, even if the measured design value for an area does not meet the NAAQS at the end of the original attainment year, if the area is eligible for and is granted an attainment date extension. The original attainment date has not yet passed, and it is possible that the attainment date will be extended per section 181(b)(2). As previously noted, the Colorado SIP submission satisfies the requirements for a modeled demonstration that the area will meet the standard in the attainment year.

The commenter also criticized EPA's approach to calculating design values for using figures that are “truncated rather than rounded.”

Response: Rules for calculating monitored ozone design values for the 2008 ozone NAAQS are in 40 CFR part 50, appendix P. Section 2.1 of appendix P requires that hourly average ozone be truncated to the third decimal place (0.001 ppm), as shall 8-hour averages compiled from the individual 1-hour averages. Section 2.2 of appendix P then requires that 3-year averages of annual fourth highest 8-hour averages also be truncated to the third decimal place. The truncation is thus in compliance with the procedure required by the regulations.

We are approving the SIP submittal from the State of Colorado for the DMNFR ozone nonattainment area submitted on May 31, 2017. Specifically, we are approving the following:

• Attainment demonstration with weight of evidence analysis for the 2008 ozone NAAQS;

• Base and future year emissions inventories;

• RFP demonstration;

• Demonstration of RACT for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) Control Technique Guidelines (CTG) sources (except for the following CTG source categories as to which we are not taking any action at this time: Metal Furniture Coatings, 2007; Miscellaneous Metal Products Coatings, 2008; Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations, 1996; Industrial Cleaning Solvents, 2006; Aerospace, 1997; and Oil and Natural Gas Industry, 2016.);

• Demonstration of RACM implementation;

• Motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program revisions in Colorado's Reg. No. 11;

• NNSR program;

• Contingency measures plan;

• MVEBs; and

• Revisions to Colorado's Reg. No. 7 (except for revisions to Reg. No. 7, Section X pertaining to VOC controls of industrial cleaning solvents, Section XVI.D revisions pertaining to RACT standards for combustion equipment, and Section XIX revisions pertaining to RACT requirements for major sources as to which we are not taking any action).

We are also approving SIP revisions to Reg. No. 7 submitted by the State on May 13, 2013, except for provisions that have been superseded by later submissions, for which we are not taking any action. We are approving these actions in accordance with section 110, 42 U.S.C. 7410, and part D of the CAA.

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 Colorado Reg. No. 11 pertaining to regulation of the State's motor vehicle emissions inspection program and Colorado Reg. No. 7 pertaining to regulation of sources of VOC and NOX emissions as discussed in section IV., J. Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program (I/M) Program and N. SIP Control Measures (except we are not acting on Reg. 7, Sections, X, XVI.D, and XIX in this action) of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.3

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 actions, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves some state law provisions as meeting federal requirements; this action 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);

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action, because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 4, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.

On September 13, 2017, YSAQMD adopted its Reasonably Available Control Technology State Implementation Plan (RACT SIP) Analysis for the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Included in the District's RACT SIP analysis were several negative declarations where the District stated that it did not have sources subject to the Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) documents listed below in Table 1. The District's RACT SIP further stated that the negative declarations were for the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS. On November 13, 2017, the California Air Resources Board submitted YSAQMD's RACT SIP, including the following negative declarations, to the EPA as a SIP revision.

On May 9, 2018 (83 FR 21235), the EPA proposed to approve YSAQMD's negative declarations for the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS into the California SIP. We proposed to approve these negative declarations because we determined that they comply with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action contains more information on the negative declarations and our evaluation.

The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received two anonymous comments that were outside the scope of this rulemaking. Neither of the comments were germane to our evaluation of YSAQMD's negative declarations.

No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the suitability of the negative declarations in our proposed action and duplicated in Table 1 above. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully approving these negative declarations for the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS into the California SIP.

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

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

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 4, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action 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:

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

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

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

National Environmental Policy Act. FEMA has determined that the community suspension(s) included in this rule is a non-discretionary action and therefore the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) does not apply.

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

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

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

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

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

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows: