Section 716 of Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) generally prohibits the provision of “Federal assistance” to any “swaps entity” with regard to any swap, security-based swap, or other activity of the swaps entity.1 “Federal assistance” is defined by section 716 to include “advances from any Federal Reserve credit facility or discount window that is not part of a program or facility with broad-based eligibility under section 13(3)(A) of the Federal Reserve Act” and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) insurance or guarantees.2 For purposes of section 716, the term “swaps entity” generally includes any swap dealer, security-based swap dealer, major swap participant, or major security-based swap participant that is registered under the Commodity Exchange Act or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as applicable.3

Section 716 provides a specific exclusion from the definition of “swaps entity” for any insured depository institution that is a major swap participant or major security-based swap participant.4 Section 716 also provides that its prohibition does not apply to an insured depository institution that limits its swaps activities to certain specified activities.5

Section 716 provides insured depository institutions with a transition period to facilitate compliance with the requirements of the section. By its terms, the prohibitions of section 716 apply to insured depository institutions only with respect to swaps and security-based swaps entered into after the expiration of the transition period. The provisions of section 716 become effective on July 16, 2013.6

The interim final rule addresses the application of section 716 to swaps entities that are uninsured U.S. branches or agencies of a foreign bank and establishes a process by which a state member bank and an uninsured state branch or agency of a foreign bank may request a transition period to conform its swaps activities to the requirements of section 716. In particular, the interim final rule treats uninsured U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks as insured depository institutions for purposes of section 716.

Section 716(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act provides that the prohibition on Federal assistance does not apply to the provision of Federal assistance to insured depository institutions that limit their swap and security-based swap activities to activities identified in that section.7 Those identified activities are: (i) Hedging and other similar risk-mitigating activities directly related to the activities of the insured depository institution, and (ii) acting as a swaps entity for swaps or security-based swaps involving rates or reference assets permissible for investment by a national bank pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 24 (Seventh), other than acting as a swaps entity for non-cleared credit default swaps.8 In addition, section 716(b)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act exempts insured depository institutions that are major swap participants from the prohibition in section 716(a).

Moreover, section 716 provides insured depository institutions with a transition period to conform their activities to those permissible under section 716.9 The appropriate Federal banking agency for an insured depository institution, in consultation with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and Commodities Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”), as appropriate, has the authority to establish the length of the transition period, which can be up to 24 months, and to extend the transition period for a period of up to one additional year. For purposes of establishing a transition period, the Board is the appropriate Federal banking agency for state member banks and uninsured state branches and agencies of foreign banks.10 Finally, section 716 applies to swaps and security-based swaps entered into by an insured depository institution only after expiration of the transition period.11

The structure, language, and purpose of section 716 create an ambiguity regarding the definition of “insured depository institution” for purposes of the various provisions of section 716, including, in particular, regarding the scope of the exceptions and transition period granted to insured depository institutions. The term “insured depository institution” is not defined for purposes of these provisions. Section 2 of the Dodd-Frank Act provides that “except as the context otherwise requires . . .,” 12 the definition of “insured depository institution” has the same meaning as in the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. “Insured depository institution” is defined by section 3(c)(2) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to mean a bank or savings association the deposits of which are insured by the FDIC, and, for some purposes under section 3(c)(3), an uninsured U.S. branch or agency.13

In the context of section 716, uninsured U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks would appear to be properly considered to be insured depository institutions. By statute, both uninsured and insured U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks may receive Federal Reserve advances on the same terms and conditions that apply to domestic insured state member banks.14 Thus, uninsured U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks are treated as insured member banks for purposes of the only Federal assistance that causes uninsured U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks to be affected by section 716. Moreover, the authority vested in the Federal banking agencies to enforce compliance with laws such as Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act against uninsured U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks is based on the treatment of those branches and agencies as insured depository institutions.15 Section 716 appears therefore, to be predicated on treatment of uninsured U.S. branches and agencies as insured depository institutions.

Treating uninsured U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks as insured depository institutions is also consistent with the purpose and legislative history of section 716. Section 716 and Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act generally are intended to reduce systemic risks from derivatives activities. Treating uninsured U.S. branches and agencies as insured depository institutions furthers these objectives by providing sufficient opportunity for uninsured U.S. branches and agencies to conform or cease their swaps activities in an orderly manner and to continue the same risk-mitigating hedging and other activities permitted for insured depository institutions under section 716. This approach is also consistent with the legislative history, which suggests Congress intended to treat uninsured branches and agencies as insured depository institutions.16

The interim final rule provides that, for purposes of section 716 of the Dodd-Frank Act and the interim final rule, the term “insured depository institution” includes any insured depository institution as defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813) and any uninsured U.S. branch or agency of a foreign bank.17 The terms branch, agency, and foreign bank are defined in section 1 of the International Banking Act of 1978.18

Section 716 provides insured depository institutions with a transition period to conform their activities.19 Under section 716(f), the appropriate Federal banking agency for an insured depository institution, in consultation with the SEC and CFTC, as appropriate, is required to establish the length of the transition period for conformance with the requirements of section 716. That transition period may be up to 24 months and may be extended for a period of up to one additional year.

In establishing the length of the transition period for an insured depository institution, the Board is required by statute to take into account and make written findings regarding the potential impact of divestiture or cessation of swap or security-based swaps activities on the insured depository institution's: (i) Mortgage lending; (ii) small business lending; (iii) job creation; (iv) capital formation versus the potential negative impact on insured depositors and the Deposit Insurance Fund of the FDIC; and (v) any other factor that the Board believes appropriate to consider.

The interim final rule provides that a state member bank and an uninsured state branch and agency of foreign bank may seek a transition period of up to 24 months from July 16, 2013 (for an entity that is a swaps entity as of July 16, 2013), or from the date on which the entity becomes a swaps entity (if that date occurs after July 16, 2013), by submitting a written request to the Board. The request must include: (i) The length of the transition period requested; (ii) a description of the quantitative and qualitative impacts of immediate divestiture or cessation of swap or security-based swaps activities on the institution, including regarding the potential impact of divestiture or cessation of swap or security-based swaps activities on the institution's mortgage lending, small business lending, job creation, capital formation versus the potential negative impact on insured depositors and the Deposit Insurance Fund of the FDIC; and (iii) a description of the insured institution's plan for conforming its activities to the requirements of section 716.

Under the interim final rule, the Board may also request additional information that it believes is necessary in order to act on a request for a transition period. The Board will seek to act on a request for a transition period expeditiously after the receipt of a complete request. The interim final rule would allow the Board to impose conditions on any transition period granted if the Board determines such conditions are necessary and appropriate. Consistent with section 716(f), the interim final rule also permits the Board, in consultation with the SEC and CFTC, as appropriate, to extend the transition period for up to one additional year. To request an extension of the transition period, an insured depository institution must submit a written request no later than 60 days before the end of the transition period.

The Board is interested in receiving comments on all aspects of the interim final rule. In particular:

Question 1. Is it appropriate and consistent with section 716 to define insured depository institution to include an uninsured U.S. branch or agency?

Question 2. How could the transition period process be modified to better achieve the purposes of section 716? Are there any additional factors that the Board should consider in reviewing a request for a transition period?

Question 3. Are there specific additional conditions or limitations that the Board should, by rule, impose in connection with granting a transition period? If so, what conditions or limitations would be appropriate? Alternatively, should the Board consider what conditions or limitations might be appropriate to apply during a transition period (including any extension thereof) on a tailored or case-by-case basis?

This interim final rule is effective immediately. Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), notice and comment are not required prior to the issuance of a final rule if an agency, for good cause, finds that “notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” 20 Similarly, a final rule may be published with an immediate effective date if an agency finds good cause and publishes such with the final rule.21

Consistent with section 553(b)(B) of the APA, the Board finds that issuing this rule as an interim final rule is necessary to avoid significant disruptions in the swaps activities of the uninsured U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks, and that obtaining notice and comment prior to issuing the interim final rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Furthermore, the Board finds that there is good cause to publish the interim final rule with an immediate effective date.

The Board views the scope of section 716's prohibition as closely related to the application of the Title VII framework to the cross-border activities of foreign banks. The CFTC and SEC both have issued proposals regarding the cross-border application of Title VII.22 The CFTC issued an exemptive order granting temporary relief from certain cross-border applications of the swaps provisions of Title VII.23

Although the Title VII regulatory structure is still being developed, section 716 goes into effect on July 16, 2013. Accordingly, the Board is seeking to provide clarity to uninsured U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks regarding the availability of the transition period and the exceptions available for insured depository institutions. Absent clarity regarding the availability of the transition period, uninsured U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks arguably would have to terminate their swaps activities by July 16, 2013 in order to continue to be eligible for access to the discount window. Terminating swaps activities by this date may result in foreign banks and their counterparties winding down their swaps activities in an inefficient and disorderly fashion that could present significant operational and other risks.

There is also good cause to provide clarity on the availability of the exceptions set forth in section 716 through this interim final rule because notice and public procedure would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Without such clarity, uninsured branches and agencies would be required to begin terminating all their swap activities during the transition period, even those that qualified for the exceptions. The novation of existing swaps may require the branch or agency to enter quickly into new master swap agreements with each customer, which could present operational risks to the branch or agency and its customers. In the Board's view, the potential harm to these entities and their counterparties that may result from not providing clarity on the availability of the exceptions warrants a departure from the notice and comment rulemaking procedure.

Last, the Board finds that there is good cause to establish the process for applying for transition period relief through this interim final rule because notice and comment would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. The interim final rule establishes a procedure of obtaining a statutory transition period and reduces burden on applying institutions by narrowing and clarifying the information that must be provided to obtain this statutory benefit. State member banks are eligible for the transition period under section 716(f) absent implementing regulations, and the Board has already received applications from state member banks requesting transition period relief. In addition, this portion of the interim final rule is appropriately characterized as a rule of procedure, and therefore would not normally be subject to notice and comment requirements. The Board has determined to publish the transition period procedures in this interim final rule in order to provide notice to all state member banks regarding these procedures.

Although notice and comment are not required prior to the effective date of this interim final rule, the Board invites comment on all aspects of this rulemaking and will revise this interim final rule if necessary or appropriate in light of the comments received.

In accordance with section 4 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., the Board is publishing an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for the interim final rule. The RFA generally requires an agency to assess the impact a rule is expected to have on small entities.24 The RFA requires an agency either to provide a regulatory flexibility analysis or to certify that the interim final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based on this analysis and for the reasons stated below, the Board believes that this interim final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Nevertheless, the Board is publishing an initial regulatory flexibility analysis and requesting public comment on the effect of the interim final rule on small entities. A final regulatory flexibility analysis will be conducted after consideration of comments received during the public comment period.

The Board is adopting this interim final rule to treat an uninsured U.S. branch or agency of a foreign bank as an insured depository institution for purposes of section 716 of the Dodd-Frank Act and establish a process by which a state member bank and uninsured branch or agency of a foreign bank may request a transition period to conform its swaps activities to the requirements of section 716.

Under regulations issued by the Small Business Administration (“SBA”), a “small entity” includes those firms within the “Finance and Insurance” sector with asset sizes that vary from $7 million or less to $175 million or less.25 The Board believes that the Finance and Insurance sector constitutes a reasonable universe of firms for these purposes because such firms generally engage in activities that are financial in nature. Consequently, bank holding companies or nonbank financial companies with assets sizes of $175 million or less are small entities for purposes of the RFA.

As discussed in the Supplementary Information, the interim final rule would apply to an uninsured U.S. branch or agency of a foreign bank and a state member bank that is registered with the CFTC or SEC as a swap dealer or security-based swap dealer, respectively. Regulations issued by the CFTC and SEC provide that a person shall not be deemed a swap dealer if its swap dealing activity over the preceding 12 months results in swap positions with an aggregate gross notional amount of no more than $3 billion, and an aggregate gross notional amount of no more than $25 million with regard to swaps with a “special entity” (which includes municipalities, other political subdivisions and employee benefit plans).26 Given the relative size of the de minimis exemption, it is unlikely that a financial firm that is at or below the $175 million asset threshold would be engaged in swaps transactions that would meet or exceed the threshold to qualify as a swap dealer or security-based swap dealer.27

As noted above, because the interim final rule is not likely to apply to any company with assets of $175 million or less, it is not expected to apply to any small entity for purposes of the RFA. The Board does not believe that the interim final rule duplicates, overlaps, or conflicts with any other Federal rules. In light of the foregoing, the Board does not believe that the interim final rule, if adopted in final form, would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities supervised. Nonetheless, the Board seeks comment on whether the interim final rule would impose undue burdens on, or have unintended consequences for, small organizations, and whether there are ways such potential burdens or consequences could be minimized in a manner consistent with section 716 of the Dodd-Frank Act.

Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act required the Federal banking agencies to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. The Federal banking agencies invite comment on how to make this interim final rule easier to understand. For example:

• Has the Board organized the material to suit your needs? If not, how could the rule be more clearly stated?

• Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? If not, how could the rule be more clearly stated?

• Do the regulations contain technical language or jargon that is not clear? If so, which language requires clarification?

• Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the regulation easier to understand? If so, what changes would make the regulation easier to understand?

• Would more, but shorter, sections be better? If so, which sections should be changed?

• What else could the Board do to make the regulation easier to understand?

In accordance with section 3512 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) (“PRA”), the Board may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) control number. The OMB control number for this information collection will be assigned. The Board reviewed the interim final rule under the authority delegated to the Board by OMB.

The interim final rule contains requirements subject to the PRA. The reporting requirements are found in sections 237.22(a)1 and 237.22(e). This information collection requirement would implement section 716 of the Dodd-Frank Act.

Title of Information Collection: Reporting Requirements Associated with Regulation KK.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit.

Respondents: Uninsured state branches or agencies of foreign banks, state member banks.

Abstract: The interim final rule would treat an uninsured U.S. branch or agency of a foreign bank as an insured depository institution and establish a process by which a state member bank and uninsured state branch or agency of a foreign bank may request a transition period to conform its swaps activities.

Section 237.22(a)(1) would enable an insured depository institution for which the Board is the appropriate Federal banking agency to request a transition period of up to 24 months from the later of July 16, 2013, or the date on which it becomes a swaps entity, during which to conform its swaps activities to the requirements of this section by submitting a request in writing to the Board. Any request submitted must, at a minimum, include the following information: (i) The length of the transition period requested; (ii) a description of the quantitative and qualitative impacts of divestiture or cessation of swap or security-based swaps activities on the insured depository institution, including information that addresses the factors in paragraph (d) of that section; and (iii) a detailed explanation of the insured depository institution's plan for conforming its activities to the requirements of section 716 of the Dodd-Frank Act (15 U.S.C. 8305) and this part.

Section 237.22(e) would allow the Board to extend a transition period for a period of up to one additional year. To request an extension of the transition period, an insured depository institution must submit a request containing the information set forth in paragraph (a) of this section. The insured depository institution must submit the request no later than 60 days before the end of the transition period.

Number of Respondents: 29.

Estimated Average Hours per Response: 7 hours.

Total Estimated Annual Burden: 203 hours.

Comments are invited on:

(a) Whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions, including whether the information has practical utility;

(b) The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collections, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the information collections on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and

(e) Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

The Board has a continuing interest in the public's opinions of collections of information. At any time, comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, may be sent to: Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets NW., Washington, DC 20551; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Washington, DC 20503.

For the reasons stated in the Supplementary Information, the Board amends 12 CFR Chapter II by adding new part 237 to read as follows:

The Farm Credit Administration adopted technical amendments to various regulations to conform certain references to accounting standards in these rules to the Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting Standards Codification. In accordance with 12 U.S.C. 2252, the effective date of the final rule is 30 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register during which either or both Houses of Congress are in session. Based on the records of the sessions of Congress, the effective date of the regulations is June 3, 2013.

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on February 22, 2013 (78 FR 12255). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The mandatory continuing airworthiness information states:

We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of life-limited parts, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received.

Roll-Royce plc requested that we identify the TC holder as Rolls-Royce plc rather than Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited, Bristol Engine Division.

We agree. We changed the AD to identify the TC holder as Rolls-Royce plc.

Rolls-Royce plc requested that we change the contact information used to request service information for Viper Mk. 601-22 turbojet engines.

We agree. We changed the contact information for requesting service information related to this AD to: Defence Aerospace Communications at Rolls-Royce plc, P.O. Box 3, Gypsy Patch Lane, Filton, Bristol, BS347QE, United Kingdom; phone: 011-44-117-9791234; or email: http://www.rolls-royce.com/contact/defence_team.jsp.

We reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.

We estimate that this AD will affect about 32 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take 0 hours per product to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. We are not requiring parts replacement, so parts cost is $0. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $0.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

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

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

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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

On March 26, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E surface airspace and modify Class D and E airspace at Pasco, WA (78 FR 18259). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

The FAA's Aeronautical Products Office found that the Pasco Compass Locator at ILS Outer Marker (LOM) has been decommissioned and needs to be removed from Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D surface area. With the exception of editorial changes and the changes described above, this rule is the same as that proposed in the NPRM.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000, 6002, 6004 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9W dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15, 2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in that Order.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E surface airspace within a 4.3-mile radius, with exclusion, at Tri-Cities Airport, Pasco, WA, to accommodate IFR aircraft executing RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures at the airport. Also, Vista Airport, Kennewick, WA, is renamed Vista Field Airport, and the geographic coordinates of the airports are updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database for existing Class D airspace, Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D surface area, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, at Pasco, WA. This action is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations.

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

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

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

On March 1, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify controlled airspace at Bend, OR (78 FR 13843). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Subsequent to publication it was discovered by the FAA that the legal description needed to be rewritten for clarity. With the exception of editorial changes and the changes described above, this rule is the same as that proposed in the NPRM.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of FAA Order 7400.9W dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15, 2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in that Order.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Bend Municipal Airport, Bend, OR, to accommodate IFR aircraft executing Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures at the airport. Also, the geographic coordinates of the airport are updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. This action is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations.

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

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

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

On March 26, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish controlled airspace at Blue Mesa, CO (78 FR 18268). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6006, of FAA Order 7400.9W dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15, 2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in that Order.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E en route domestic airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface, at the Blue Mesa VOR/DME navigation aid, Blue Mesa, CO, to accommodate IFR aircraft under control of Denver and Albuquerque ARTCC by vectoring aircraft from en route airspace to terminal areas. This action is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations.

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

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

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

On March 26, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish controlled airspace at Gillette, WY (78 FR 18266). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6006, of FAA Order 7400.9W dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15, 2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in that Order.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E en route domestic airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface, at the Gillette VOR/DME navigation aid, Gillette, WY, to accommodate IFR aircraft under control of Denver, Salt Lake City and Minneapolis ARTCCs by vectoring aircraft from en route airspace to terminal areas. This action is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations.

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

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

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

On March 26, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish controlled airspace at Tobe, CO (78 FR 18264). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6006, of FAA Order 7400.9W dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15, 2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in that Order.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E en route domestic airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface, at the Tobe VOR/DME navigation aid, Tobe, CO, to accommodate IFR aircraft under control of Denver and Albuquerque ARTCC by vectoring aircraft from en route airspace to terminal areas. This action is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations.

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

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

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

On March 6, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace at Sanibel, FL (78 FR 14473). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Subsequent to publication the FAA found that the heliport coordinates were incorrectly listed as point in space coordinates; and point in space coordinates were inadvertently omitted. This action makes the correction. Except for editorial changes and the changes listed above, this rule is the same as published in the NPRM.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9W dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15, 2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Sanibel, FL, providing the controlled airspace required to support the new Copter RNAV (GPS) special standard instrument approach procedures for Sanibel Island Heliport. Controlled airspace within a 6-mile radius of the point in space coordinates of the heliport is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at the heliport. Geographic coordinates for the heliport and point in space are corrected and separately listed.

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

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

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

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

On March 26, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify controlled airspace at Clifton/Morenci, AZ (78 FR 18269). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of FAA Order 7400.9W dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15, 2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in that Order.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Greenlee County Airport, Clifton/Morenci, AZ. Additional controlled airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface at Greenlee County Airport is necessary to accommodate IFR aircraft executing RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures at the airport. This action is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations.

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

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

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

This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulators description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The applicable FAA Forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.

The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, in addition to their complex nature and the need for a special format make publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Furthermore, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. The advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA forms is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAPs and the effective dates of the, associated Takeoff Minimums and ODPs. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as contained in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPS and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPS and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedures before adopting these SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and/or Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0902 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (FDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference in the amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and § 97.20 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained in FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAP and the corresponding effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP as modified by FDC/P-NOTAMs.

The SIAPs, as modified by FDC P-NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for all these SIAP amendments requires making them effective in less than 30 days.

Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, 14 CFR part 97, is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a document amending the regulations for irradiation of animal feed and pet food that appeared in the Federal Register of May 10, 2013 (78 FR 27303). That document used incorrect style for the strength units describing radiation sources. This correction is being made to improve the accuracy of the animal drug regulations.

Therefore, 21 CFR part 579 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments.

Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading statements on labels, and ensure that labels provide the consumer with adequate information as to the identity, quality, and alcohol content of the product. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers the FAA Act pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated various authorities through Treasury Department Order 120-01 (Revised), dated January 21, 2003, to the TTB Administrator to perform the functions and duties in the administration and enforcement of this law.

Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) sets forth the requirements under the FAA Act for the labeling and advertising of wine. Section 4.10 (27 CFR 4.10) defines a brand label as the label carrying, in the usual distinctive design, the brand name of the wine. Section 4.32 (27 CFR 4.32) prescribes mandatory label information. Section 4.32(a) requires a statement of the following on the brand label:

• The brand name, in accordance with § 4.33;

• The class, type, or other designation, in accordance with § 4.34;

• The alcohol content, in accordance with § 4.36; and

• On blends consisting of American and foreign wines, if any reference is made to the presence of foreign wine, the exact percentage by volume.

In addition, § 4.32(b) lists other mandatory label information that may appear on any label affixed to the container.

The World Wine Trade Group (WWTG) is composed of both government officials and industry representatives from, currently, Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, Georgia, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United States. The WWTG was formed to discuss and address issues relating to international wine trade, including reducing and preventing non-tariff barriers to that wine trade.

The Office of the United States Trade Representative heads the inter-agency team from the United States that represents the U.S. Government during WWTG discussions. This team also includes representatives from TTB, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Departments of Commerce, State, and Agriculture.

The WWTG concluded negotiations on a wine labeling agreement intended to facilitate further wine trade among members. The WWTG Agreement on Requirements for Wine Labelling, hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement,” was initialed on September 20, 2006, and was signed in Canberra, Australia, on January 23, 2007, by the United States and other governments. This is an executive agreement and not a treaty. A full copy of the Agreement can be viewed at http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/ocg/WWTGlabel.pdf. These negotiations proceeded from the view that common labeling requirements would provide industry members with the opportunity to use the same label when shipping wine to each of the WWTG member countries.

In the course of the negotiations, the participants recognized that most members consider four particular items of information to be mandatory. The four items, referred to as “Common Mandatory Information” (hereinafter CMI) in the WWTG Agreement, are: (1) Country of origin, (2) alcohol content (percentage by volume), (3) net contents, and (4) product name. The negotiated Agreement also incorporates a “Single Field of Vision” concept for the placement of the CMI. A “Single Field of Vision” is any part of the surface of the container, excluding its base and cap, that can be seen without having to turn the container. Under this approach, as long as all four of the CMI elements are visible at the same time, they will meet the placement requirements (if any) of each member country. In other words, each country must permit the CMI for an imported wine to appear on any label anywhere on the wine container (except the base or cap), provided all four CMI items are in a Single Field of Vision.

The United States cannot deposit an instrument of acceptance for the Agreement if the TTB regulations on wine labeling are inconsistent with the CMI terms of the Agreement. TTB reviewed its wine labeling regulations to determine if any change was necessary in order for the United States to meet its obligation to permit these four pieces of information to appear in a single field of vision on labels of imported wines, as outlined in the Agreement. TTB noted that:

• Although the TTB regulations do not require the inclusion of the country of origin on wine labels, such a requirement is contained in statutory and regulatory provisions administered by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (see 19 U.S.C. 1304 and 19 CFR 134.11). Consistent with these requirements, the country of origin may appear on any label affixed to a container of imported wine.

• The product name under the Agreement is the word “wine” and the TTB regulations contain no specific requirements for, or restrictions on, the use of the word “wine” alone on wine labels.

• TTB regulations generally allow the net contents statement to appear on any label affixed to the wine container. (See 27 CFR 4.32(b)(2)).

• TTB regulations require that alcohol content information appear on the brand label of a wine container. (See 27 CFR 4.32(a)(3)).

Thus, the only inconsistency between the TTB wine labeling regulations and the CMI terms of the Agreement is in the regulatory requirement for alcohol content information to appear on the brand label. Accordingly, TTB issued a notice of proposed rulemaking in 2007 to propose removing this requirement.

On September 11, 2007, TTB published a notice of proposed rulemaking titled “Modification of Mandatory Label Information for Wine, Distilled Spirits, and Malt Beverages” in the Federal Register (72 FR 51732) as Notice No. 74. In that notice, TTB proposed to permit alcohol content information for wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages to appear on other labels affixed to the container rather than on the brand label as is currently required. Specifically, TTB proposed to amend 27 CFR 4.32 (mandatory label information for wine), 5.32 (mandatory label information for distilled spirits), and 7.22 (mandatory label information for malt beverages) to move the alcohol content requirements from paragraph (a) of each of those sections, which prescribes in each case mandatory label information required to appear on a brand label, to paragraph (b) of each of those sections, which prescribes mandatory label requirements for information that need not appear on the brand label.

The change in § 4.32 will allow industry members to apply the WWTG “Single Field of Vision” concept concerning the placement of CMI on labels. TTB's proposal to make the additional changes in §§ 5.32, and 7.22 was intended to foster consistency in the labeling requirements among all TTB-regulated alcohol beverage products.

The changes proposed in Notice No. 74 were limited to removing the placement requirement for alcohol content. All other formatting requirements, such as type size and legibility, remain the same.

In Notice No. 74, TTB requested comments from all interested persons on the proposed regulatory changes by November 13, 2007. TTB received five comments in response to that notice. (Copies of Notice No. 74, the comments received, and this final rule are available online at the “Regulations.gov” Web site (http://www.regulations.gov) within Docket No. TTB-2007-0065.)

Three comments expressed support for the proposal. Jackson Family Wines stated its support for the WWTG labeling initiative, as well as for giving industry members more flexibility in labeling while not reducing the information that is available to the consumer. The Francis Ford Coppola Winery and the Niebaum-Coppola Estate Winery also expressed their “full support” of the proposal. Finally, the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States (DISCUS) expressed its support for the increased flexibility that the proposal would provide, in addition to the proposal's reduction of regulatory conflicts among global trading partners. DISCUS also supported TTB's proposal to make the change for distilled spirits and malt beverages in addition to wine. DISCUS also referred to other proposals outside the scope of Notice No. 74, which are not addressed in this document.

The two remaining comments were mistakenly submitted in response to Notice No. 74, but they actually related to Notice No. 73 (72 FR 41860), which proposed new requirements relating to alcohol content statements and a “Serving Facts” panel on alcohol beverage labels. Because those comments do not pertain to Notice No. 74, they are also not addressed in this document.

In addition to the five comments submitted in response to Notice No. 74, some comments submitted in response to Notice No. 73 included points that were responsive to Notice No. 74. Many commenters expressed strong opposition to TTB's proposal to allow alcohol content information to appear on any label rather than to require this information to appear on a “Serving Facts” information panel. The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) specifically stated that the TTB proposal would obscure information that is of vital importance to consumers of alcohol beverages. According to CSPI, “[c]onsumers should not have to hunt for alcohol-content information that might appear in different locations on different brands and different sizes of thousands of products in the market place.” CSPI further stated:

Many other commenters, most notably consumers, consumer organizations, and public health and education officials, agreed that consumers should not have to hunt for alcohol content information. Other commenters stated that they believe that the alcohol content should continue to be displayed on the brand label as well as in any “Serving Facts” information panel. For example, the Marin Institute (which has since changed its name to Alcohol Justice) supported a requirement to list the alcohol content for all alcohol beverages on the brand label, as is currently required for distilled spirits, wines with an alcohol content above 14 percent alcohol by volume, and certain flavored malt beverages.

TTB is finalizing the proposal to amend § 4.32 so that the United States' wine labeling regulations will be consistent with the Agreement. The Agreement entered into force on July 1, 2010. This final rule will allow the United States to deposit its instrument of acceptance.

TTB notes that the change does not require alcohol beverage industry members to make any changes to their current labels because alcohol content information may still be placed on the brand label. The TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.40 and 4.50) generally require that regulated industry members obtain a certificate of label approval (COLA) from TTB prior to the bottling or removal of domestic wines, or prior to the release of imported wines, in containers, from customs custody for consumption. TTB's position is that a new COLA is not required if the only change made to a wine label appearing on a previously issued COLA is the moving of the alcohol content information to a label other than the brand label.

TTB revisited the changes proposed to §§ 5.32 and 7.22 (similar changes for distilled spirits and malt beverages) and has decided not to finalize these changes at this time. The proposed changes to §§ 5.32 and 7.22 remain under consideration. TTB may amend those sections in the future. Accordingly, TTB is adopting the proposed regulatory amendments to § 4.32, to conform the regulations to the Agreement, but not the proposed regulatory amendments to §§ 5.32 or 7.22.

TTB is also making a clarifying change to § 4.36 with regard to the use of the type designation “table wine” or “light wine” in lieu of a numerical alcohol content statement. Section 4.34(a) provides that the class of the wine must be stated in conformity with the standards of identity if the wine is defined in subpart C of part 4, except that “table wine” or “light wine” and “dessert wine” need not be designated as such. (A “table wine” or “light wine” is grape wine having an alcohol content of at least 7 percent and no more than 14 percent by volume. A “dessert wine” is grape wine having an alcohol content of more than 14 percent but no more than 24 percent by volume.)

As previously noted, § 4.32 provides that alcohol content must be stated on the label in accordance with § 4.36. However, § 4.36 allows wine with an alcohol content of at least 7 percent and no more than 14 percent by volume to bear the type designation “table wine” or “light wine” in lieu of a numerical alcohol content statement. On the other hand, consistent with § 4.34(a), the type designation “table wine” or “light wine” need not appear on the label if the wine is labeled with an alcohol content statement, expressed as a percentage of alcohol by volume.

Accordingly, while the type designation “table wine” or “light wine” may be used in lieu of a numerical alcohol content statement pursuant to § 4.36, these designations are not treated as alcohol content statements by the Agreement, which only addresses “actual alcohol content” stated as a percentage of alcohol by volume. The amendment to § 4.36 simply clarifies that, pursuant to existing regulations on the placement of class and type designations, the designation “table wine” or “light wine” must appear on the brand label where it is used as a type designation in lieu of a numerical alcohol content statement.

It has been determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), TTB certifies that this rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rule will not impose, or otherwise cause, a significant increase in reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance burdens on a substantial number of small entities. The final rule will increase the flexibility afforded to bottlers and importers of wine with regard to placement of mandatory alcohol content statements on labels and will not require any changes to existing labels. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

The collection of information in this rule has been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the title “Labeling and Advertising Requirements Under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act,” and assigned control number 1513-0087. This regulation will not result in a substantive or material change in the previously approved collection action, since the nature of the mandatory information that must appear on labels affixed to the container remains unchanged. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number.

Karen E. Welch of the Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, drafted this document. Other personnel participated in its development.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB is amending 27 CFR, chapter I, part 4 as follows:

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” 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 doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The final details for this power boat race were not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be both impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators, participants, and vessels from the hazards associated with this event.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, waiting for a 30 day notice period run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

Between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. on June 16, 2013, OPA Racing LLC is holding an offshore powerboat race that will require the immediate area to be clear of all vessel traffic. The Captain of the Port Detroit has determined powerboat races in close proximity to watercraft and infrastructure pose extra and unusual hazards to public safety and property. The likely combination of large numbers of recreation vessels, powerboats traveling at high speeds, and large numbers of spectators in close proximity to the water pose extra and unusual hazards to public safety and property and could easily result in serious injuries or fatalities. Thus, the Captain of the Port Detroit has determined that establishing a Special Local Regulation, pursuant to the authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233, around the race course will help ensure the safety of life during this event.

In light of the aforesaid hazards, the Captain of the Port Detroit has determined that a special local regulation is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators, vessels, and participants. This special local regulation will be enforced from 10 a.m. until 4 p.m. on June 16, 2013. This regulated area will encompass all waters of Tawas Bay, beginning at the Tawas Point Horn on land at 44°14′54.9″ N, 083°27′31.5″ W; extending west to a point on land just north of the Tawas Bay Marina at position 44°15′29.6″ N, 083°31′36.4″ W. All geographic coordinates are North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the regulated area is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit 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 these statutes or executive orders.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Orders. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues.

The Coast Guard's use of this special local regulation will be of relatively small size and short duration, and it is designed to minimize its impact on navigation. Furthermore, vessels may, when circumstances allow, obtain permission from the Captain of the Port to transit through the area affected by this special local regulation. Overall, the Coast Guard expects minimal impact to vessel movement from the enforcement of this special local regulation.

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 will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Tawas Bay near East Tawas, MI between 10 a.m. until 4 p.m. on June 16, 2013.

This special local regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This regulated area will only be in effect and enforced for six hours on one day. The race event will be temporarily stopped for any deep draft vessels transiting through the shipping lanes. Additional vessel traffic may be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port. The Captain of the Port can be reached via VHF channel 16. The Coast Guard will give notice to the public via a Broadcast Notice to Mariners that the regulation is in effect, allowing vessel owners and operators to plan accordingly.

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 this rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a special local regulation issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade, and, therefore it is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph (34)(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. During the annual permitting process for this event an environmental analysis was conducted, and thus, no preliminary environmental analysis checklist or Categorical Exclusion Determination (CED) are required for this rulemaking action.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

On April 17, 2013, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Special Local Regulations; Pro Hydro-X Tour, Lake Dora; Tavares, FL in the Federal Register (78 FR 22808). The Coast Guard received no comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

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 did not receive the necessary information with regard to this event in time to provide both an NPRM and a delayed effective date. As such, any delay in the effective date for the rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because the first race will begin on June 1, 2013. As a result, the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish special local regulations: 33 U.S.C. 1233. The purpose of the rule is to ensure safety of life on navigable waters of the United States during the Pro Hydro-X Tour.

The Coast Guard did not receive any comments to the proposed rule, and no changes were made to the regulatory text.

On Saturday and Sunday, June 1-2 and June 8-9, 2013, H2X Racing Promotions will host the Pro Hydro-X Tour, a series of high-speed personal watercraft races. The Pro Hydro-X Tour will be held on Lake Dora in Tavares, Florida. Approximately 75 vessels are anticipated to participate in the races. No spectator vessels are expected to attend the Pro Hydro-X Tour. The rule will establish a special local regulation that encompasses certain waters of Lake Dora in Tavares, Florida. The special local regulation will be enforced from 9 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. on June 1-2 and June 8-9, 2013. This special local regulation is necessary to ensure the safety of life on navigable waters of the United States during the races. The special local regulation will consist of the following two areas during each weekend that it is enforced: (1) a race area, where all persons and vessels, except those persons and vessels participating in the high-speed personal watercraft races, are prohibited from entering, transiting, anchoring, or remaining; and (2) a buffer zone around the race area, where all persons and vessels, except those persons and vessels enforcing the buffer zone, or authorized participants transiting to and from the race area, are prohibited from entering, transiting, anchoring, or remaining unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Jacksonville or a designated representative.

Persons and vessels may request authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the race area or buffer zone by contacting the Captain of the Port Jacksonville by telephone at (904) 564-7513, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the race area or buffer zone is granted by the Captain of the Port Jacksonville or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Jacksonville or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the special local regulations by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.

The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The special local regulation will be enforced for only 34 hours; (2) although persons and vessels will not be able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the race area or buffer zone without being an authorized participant or enforcing the buffer zone, or receiving authorization from the Captain of the Port Jacksonville or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement periods; (3) nonparticipant persons and vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the race area or buffer zone if authorized by the Captain of the Port Jacksonville or a designated representative; and (4) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the special local regulation to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received zero comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within that portion of Lake Dora encompassed within the special local regulation from 9 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. on June 1-2, 2013 and June 8-9, 2013. For the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a special local regulation issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) and 35(b) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulation listed 33 CFR 100.100 and safety zones listed in 33 CFR 165.151 on the specified dates and times as indicated in the tables below. If the event is delayed by inclement weather, the regulation will be enforced on the rain date indicated in the tables. These regulations were published in the Federal Register on February 10, 2012 (77 FR 6954).

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.100 & 33 CFR 165.151, The fireworks displays, and regatta event listed above are established as safety zones or special local regulation. During these enforcement periods, persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, mooring, or anchoring within the safety zones or special local regulation unless they receive permission from the COTP or designated representative.

This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100, 33 CFR 165 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners or marine information broadcasts. If the COTP determines that a regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

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 because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The final details for this event were not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be both impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect participants, spectators, and vessels from the hazards associated with a large scale swimming event, which are discussed further below.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), The Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, waiting for a 30 day notice period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish regulated navigation areas and limited access areas: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

Between 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. on June 22, 2013, a large scale swimming event will be held on Presque Isle Bay near the Erie Yacht Club lighthouse dock, Erie, PA. The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that this large scale swimming event across a navigable waterway will pose significant risks to participants and the boating public.

With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and vessels during the Bay Swim VI swimming event. This zone will be effective and enforced from 8:30 a.m. until 11:30 a.m. on June 22, 2013. This zone will encompass all waters of Presque Isle Bay, Erie, PA starting from Vista 3 in Presque Isle State Park at position 42°07′29.30″ N, 80°08′48.82″ W and extend in a straight line 1,000 feet wide to the Erie Yacht Club at position 42°07′21.74″ N, 80°07′58.30″ W (DATUM: NAD 83).

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 these statutes and executive orders.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, 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.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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 will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Presque Isle Bay near Erie, PA between 8:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on June 22, 2013.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This safety zone would be activated, and thus subject to enforcement, for only approximately 3 hours. Traffic may be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port. The Captain of the Port can be reached via VHF channel 16. Before the activation of the zone, we would issue local 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 above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”

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 it is impracticable. The Coast Guard did not receive information regarding the date and scope of the event with sufficient time to solicit public comments before the start of the event. The sponsor was not aware of the requirements for submitting an application for a marine event, resulting in a late notification to the Coast Guard. The sponsor is unable to reschedule this event due to the Ad Club's 100th Anniversary Gala celebration being held at The Institute Of Contemporary Art in conjunction with the fireworks display. Due to the dangers posed by the pyrotechnics used in this fireworks display, the safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of event participants, spectator craft, and other vessels transiting the event area. For the safety concerns noted, it is in the public interest to have these regulations in effect during the event.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), for the same reasons as above, the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Any delay in the effective date of this rule would expose spectators, vessels and other property to the hazards associated with pyrotechnics used in the fireworks display.

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

A fireworks display is scheduled to occur as part of the Ad Club's 100th Anniversary Gala celebration at The Institute of Contemporary Art. The COTP Boston has determined that fireworks displays in close proximity to watercraft and waterfront structures pose a significant risk to public safety and property. Establishing a safety zone around the location of this fireworks event will help ensure the safety of spectators, vessels and other property and help minimize the associated risks.

This safety zone will encompass a 600-foot radius around the firework barge. The fireworks display will occur from approximately 9 p.m. until 10 p.m. on June 26, 2013. To ensure public safety, the safety zone will be enforced immediately before, during, and after the fireworks launch. If the event is cancelled, then the safety zone will not be enforced.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes or executive orders.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.

The Coast Guard has determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action for the following reasons: The safety zone will be in effect for approximately two hours during the evening. The Coast Guard expects minimal adverse impact to mariners from the activation of the zone; this zone is located on the outer edge of the Boston Main Ship Channel and vessels have sufficient room to transit around the safety zone; and vessels may enter or pass through the affected waterway with the permission of the Captain of the Port (COTP) or the COTP's designated on-scene representative; and notification of the safety zone will be made to mariners through the local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners well in advance of the event.

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 Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This rule will be in effect for only two hours on a single day during the late evening; vessels may transit in all portions of the affected waterway except for those areas covered by the safety zone and vessels may enter or pass through the affected waterway with the permission of the COTP or the COTP's designated on-scene representative. Notification of the safety zone will be made to mariners through the Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners well in advance of the event.

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 you believe that this rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this rule on April 19, 2013 (78 FR 23519). We received no comments on the proposed rule.

North Carolina Department of Transportation has awarded a contract to American Bridge Company of Coraopolis, PA to perform bridge maintenance on the U.S. 74/76 Bascule Bridge crossing the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 283.1, at Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina. The contract provides for cleaning, painting, steel repair, and grid floor replacement which commenced on September 1, 2012. The original completion date was May 1, 2013, however, the contractor was granted an extension on the completion date by North Carolina Department of Transportation to July 27, 2013. Due to concerns from the Town of Wrightsville Beach relating to impacts to vehicular traffic and subsequent impacts to their economy that may result from ongoing construction, topside bridge work has been delayed. The anticipated date to resume topside work is October 1, 2013 with a completion date of March 1, 2014. In the meantime, American Bridge Company will continue to perform bridge mechanical work, electrical work, and the cleaning and painting of the structural steel throughout the months preceding resumption of topside work. The contractor will utilize a 40 foot deck barge with a 40 foot beam as a work platform and for equipment staging. A safety zone is needed to a safety buffer to transiting vessels as bridge repairs present potential hazards to mariners and property due to reduction horizontal clearance.

The temporary safety zone will encompass the waters directly under the U.S. 74/76 Bascule Bridge crossing the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, mile 283.1, at Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina (34°13′07″ N, 077°48′46″ W). All vessels transiting the this section of the waterway requiring a horizontal clearance of greater than 50 feet will be required to make a one hour advanced notification to the U.S. 74/76 Bascule Bridge tender while the safety zone is in effect. The initial safety zone is currently in effect, and began on 8 a.m. September 1, 2012 was in effect through 8 p.m. May 1, 2013. The initial extension of the safety zone commenced at 8 p.m. on May 1, 2013 and will be in effect until 8 p.m. July 27, 2013. The extension will be in effect from 8 p.m. July 27, 2013 through 8 p.m. March 1, 2014.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This rule does not restrict traffic from transiting through the noted portion of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway; it only imposes a one hour notification to ensure the waterway is clear of impediment to allow passage to vessels requiring a horizontal clearance of greater than 50 feet.

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 received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. 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 would affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of commercial tug and barge companies, recreational and commercial fishing vessels intending to transit the specified portion of Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway from 8 p.m. July 27, 2013 through 8 p.m. March 1, 2014.

This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. Although the safety zone will apply to the entire width of this section of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, vessel traffic will be able to request passage by providing a one hour advanced notification. Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories widely available to the users of the waterway. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Coast Guard will enforce a 100 foot safety zone around the fireworks barge during the loading, transit, and arrival of the fireworks barge to the display location and until the start of the fireworks display. From 9 a.m. until 2 p.m. on July 4, 2013, the barge will be loading off of Pier 50 in approximate position 37°46′28″ N, 122°23′06″ W (NAD 83). From 7 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. on July 4, 2013 the loaded barge will transit from Pier 50 to the launch site near Sausalito, CA in approximate position 37°51′31″ N, 122°28′28″ W (NAD83). Upon the commencement of the 15 minute fireworks display, scheduled to begin at 9:15 p.m. on July 4, 2013, the safety zone will increase in size and encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius 1,000 feet in approximate position 37°51′31″ N, 122°28′28″ W (NAD83). In accordance with 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 12, this safety zone will be in effect from 9 a.m. to 9:45 p.m. on July 4, 2013.

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1191, unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring in the safety zone during all applicable effective dates and times, unless authorized to do so by the PATCOM. Additionally, each person who receives notice of a lawful order or direction issued by an official patrol vessel shall obey the order or direction. The PATCOM is empowered to forbid entry into and control the regulated area. The PATCOM shall be designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector San Francisco. The PATCOM may, upon request, allow the transit of commercial vessels through regulated areas when it is safe to do so. This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1191 and 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with extensive advance notification of the safety zone and its enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners.

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

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 because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The final details for this event were not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be both impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a maritime fireworks display, which are discussed further below.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), The Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, waiting for a 30 day notice period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish regulated navigation areas and limited access areas: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.0170.1.

Between 10:00 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. on June 22, 2013, a fireworks display will be held on the Genesee River near the east pier of the river entrance, Rochester, NY. The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that fireworks launched proximate to a gathering of watercraft pose a significant risk to public safety and property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris.

With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the Rochester Yacht Club fireworks display. This zone will be effective and enforced from 9:30 p.m. until 11:00 p.m. on June 22, 2013. This zone will encompass all waters of the Genesee River, Rochester, NY within a 560 foot radius of position 43°15′36.6″ N and 77°36′00.6″ W (NAD 83).

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 these statutes and executive orders.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, 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.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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 will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Genesee River on the evening of June 22, 2013.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: this safety zone would be activated, and thus subject to enforcement, for only 90 minutes late in the day. Traffic may be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port. The Captain of the Port can be reached via VHF channel 16. Before the activation of the zone, we would issue local 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 above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Throughout this document, whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. On February 26, 2013 (78 FR 13007), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The NPR proposed approval of Allegheny County's SIP revision addressing the RACT requirements under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The formal SIP revision was submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on May 5, 2009.

EPA requires for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS that states meet the CAA RACT requirements, either through a certification that previously adopted RACT controls in their SIP approved by EPA under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS represent adequate RACT control levels for 8-hour ozone NAAQS attainment purposes or through the establishment of new or more stringent requirements that represent RACT control levels. See Final Rule To Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard—Phase 2; Final Rule To Implement Certain Aspects of the 1990 Amendments Relating to New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration as They Apply in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter and Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for Reformulated Gasoline (Phase 2 Rule), (70 FR 71612, 71655, November 29, 2005).

On May 5, 2009, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted on behalf of ACHD a SIP revision addressing the RACT requirements for Allegheny County under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS set forth by the CAA. Allegheny County's SIP revision is consistent with the Phase 2 Rule and satisfies the requirements of RACT set forth by the CAA under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS through: (1) Certification that previously adopted RACT controls in Allegheny County's SIP, which were approved by EPA under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, are based on the currently available technically and economically feasible controls and continue to represent RACT for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS; (2) a negative declaration demonstrating that no facilities exist in Allegheny County for the applicable CTG categories; and (3) a new RACT determination for a single source based upon reliance on the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standard as allowed in the Phase 2 Rule. Additional details on the SIP revision as well as the rationale for EPA's proposed action are included in the NPR and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPR.

EPA is approving Allegheny County's 8-hour ozone RACT demonstration submitted to EPA on May 5, 2009 as a revision to the Allegheny County's portion of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's SIP.

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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• 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).

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 August 9, 2013. 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, which approves Allegheny County's 8-hour ozone RACT demonstration, 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 Gulf reef fish fishery, which includes red snapper, is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) and is implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

On March 25, 2013, NMFS implemented an emergency rule to authorize the NMFS Regional Administrator to set the closure date of the red snapper recreational fishing season in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off individual states (78 FR 17882). This was intended to compensate for the additional harvest of red snapper by the recreational sector during less restrictive state-water seasons off certain states. On May 31, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the southern district of Texas, Brownsville Division, set aside this emergency rule. Therefore, the closure of the recreational sector for red snapper for the 2013 fishing year is adjusted so that the Federal recreational red snapper season is consistent across all Gulf states. Taking into account the catches expected later in 2013 during the extended state-water seasons off Texas, Louisiana, and Florida, and the increased quota published in a final rule on May 29, 2013 (78 FR 32179), NMFS projects the recreational red snapper quota of 4.145 million lb (1.880 million kg), round weight (50 CFR 622.39(a)(2)(i)), to be harvested in 28 days. Therefore, NMFS closes the recreational sector for red snapper in the entire Gulf EEZ at 12:01 a.m., local time, June 29, 2013. The closure dates off individual Gulf states that published in the final rule on May 29, 2013 (78 FR 32179) are therefore no longer in effect.

During the Gulf-wide EEZ closure, the bag and possession limit for red snapper in or from the Gulf EEZ is zero. In addition, a person aboard a vessel for which a Federal charter vessel/headboat permit for Gulf reef fish has been issued must also abide by these closure provisions in state waters. NMFS has determined this action is necessary to prevent the recreational sector for red snapper from exceeding its quota for the fishing year.

The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, (RA) has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of Gulf red snapper and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.

This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.39(a)(2)(i) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this temporary rule. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule implementing the recreational red snapper quota and the rule implementing the requirement to close the recreational sector when the quota is reached or projected to be reached have already been subject to notice and comment, and NMFS must now notify the public of the adjusted closure. Such procedures are contrary to the public interest because the recreational fishing season opened 1 day after the Court set aside the emergency rule authorizing state specific EEZ closures, and the quota is projected to be reached quickly. Providing prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this action would also be contrary to the public interest because many of those affected by the length of the recreational fishing season, particularly charter vessel and headboat operations, book trips for clients in advance and, therefore need as much time as possible to adjust business plans to account for the adjusted recreational fishing season.

For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

This action corrects the “Dates” section referenced in the final rule for Framework Adjustment 48, published on May 3, 2013 (78 FR 26118). The Framework Adjustment 48 final rule states: “DATES: Effective May 1, 2013, except for the amendment to § 648.84, which is effective July 1, 2013.” This is incorrect. The correct language should have read: “DATES: Effective May 1, 2013, except for the amendment to § 648.83, which is effective July 1, 2013.”

Framework Adjustment 48 reduced the NE multispecies minimum fish sizes for several groundfish stocks. The regulations retaining to minimum fish sizes are found in § 648.83. Measure 13 of the final rule implementing Framework Adjustment 48 explains the need to address discrepancies between state and Federal minimum fish sizes, stating that different fish sizes could complicate compliance and enforcement of this measure. Because of this concern, NMFS intended to delay the effective date of the measure to reduce minimum sizes until July 1, 2013, to allow state agencies additional time to consider and make corresponding adjustments to their minimum sizes. However, the “Dates” section of the Framework Adjustment 48 final rule inadvertently stated that measures in § 648.84 were being delayed instead. Section 648.84 relates to gear-marking requirements and gear restrictions. The text of Framework Adjustment 48 did not specify an alternative effective date for revisions to § 648.84, and the intention was to have those revisions become effective with the remainder of the amendments to part 648 on May 1, 2013.

This action corrects this inadvertent error by staying § 648.83(a)(1) from June 10, 2013 to July 1, 2013, and making § 648.84(e) effective on June 10, 2013.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 533(d), the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effective date because it is contrary to the public interest to retain effective dates that merely reflect a typographical error. The correction to the effective date of the revisions to § 648.84 needs to be effective immediately in order to properly implement the rule as intended, and as described in the preamble to the published final rule (May 3, 2013, 78 FR 26118). A delay would be contrary to the public's interest because it would leave in place the improperly delayed July 1, 2013, effective date for gear-marking requirements and gear restrictions (§ 648.84), and an incorrect May 1, 2013, effective date for new reductions in the multispecies minimum fish sizes (§ 648.83). Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d), the AA finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effective date.