We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.

We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

We propose to adopt a new AD for MDHI Model MD900 helicopters with certain bolts installed. This proposed AD is prompted by multiple reports of in-service bolt failures, which could lead to loss of the MRB structural integrity and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. Although these bolt failures have primarily occurred in the United Kingdom, it is possible that the failures affect MDHI Model 900 helicopters in the United States. This condition, if not detected, could lead to loss of MRB structural integrity and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

We have reviewed MDHI Alert Service Bulletin SB900-116R1, dated April 9, 2010 (ASB SB900-116R1), which supersedes ASB SB900-116, dated February 24, 2010 (ASB SB900-116).

ASB SB900-116 specifies a repetitive check of the blade retention bolts, part number (P/N) 900R3100001-103 and 900R3100001-105, for a gap and, depending on the outcome of the inspection, removing and inspecting the bolt for damage. The ASB also specifies a repetitive force check of each bolt, P/N 900R3100001-103, and a torque check of each bolt, P/N 900R3100001-105. Lastly, the ASB specifies a daily preflight check of each bolt to examine the position of the bolt and for a gap, and, if any bolt has moved up or down or if there was no gap, removing and inspecting the bolt.

Superseding ASB SB900-116R1 retains the same specifications as ASB SB90016, except that it revises the interval for the bolt force and torque checks from 4-6 flight-hours to 8-10 flight-hours. ASB SB90016R1 also revises the change of force or torque from not more than 10 percent to not more than ±10 percent.

The proposed AD would require:

• Before the first flight of each day, visually checking each bolt for failure and for a gap between the thrust washer and the retainer.

• An owner/operator (pilot) may perform these visual checks and must enter compliance into the helicopter maintenance records in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9(a)(1)-(4) and 91.417(a)(2)(v). A pilot may perform this check because it involves only a visual check for the position of the bolt and a check for a gap between the thrust washer and retainer and can be performed equally well by a pilot or mechanic. This authorization is an exception to our standard maintenance regulations.

• If there is any indication of bolt failure or if there is no gap between the thrust washer and retainer, before further flight, removing and inspecting the bolt for a crack and replacing any cracked bolt with an airworthy bolt.

• Within 300 hours time-in-service, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 300 hours TIS, inspecting each bolt for a gap between the thrust washer and the retainer.

○ Determining if there is a missing O-ring and installing any missing O-ring.

○ If there is no gap between the thrust washer and retainer, before further flight, removing and inspecting the bolt for a crack and replacing any cracked bolt with an airworthy bolt.

○ If there is a gap between the thrust washer and retainer, measuring the gap in two locations with a feeler gage. If the gap is too large, removing and inspecting the bolt for a crack, before further flight; and then replacing any cracked bolt with an airworthy bolt.

This proposed AD uses the term “inspect” when describing the action of inspecting a bolt for a crack and inspecting for a gap between the thrust washer and the retainer. The ASB uses the term “check.”

We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 29 helicopters in the U.S. registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD: The average labor rate is $85 per work hour. It would take about .5 work hour to do a gap inspection of each bolt. It would take about 1 work hour to replace a cracked bolt and the required parts would cost $800 at a total cost per helicopter of $928.

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 proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

History

On March 6, 2013, a NPRM was published in the Federal Register establishing Class E airspace at Cleveland, TN to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures for Cleveland Regional Jetport (78 FR 14475). Subsequent to publication the FAA found that existing information for Bradley Memorial Hospital was omitted in the Cleveland, TN proposed rule. Also, there is another proposed rulemaking for Dayton, TN, with Bradley Memorial Hospital information. To avoid confusion this proposed rule is being withdrawn and will be combined with the Dayton, TN, proposed rulemaking.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, as published in the Federal Register on March 6, 2013 (78 FR 14474) (FR Doc 2013-05210.), is hereby withdrawn.

Located in northwestern Lake Huron, Thunder Bay is adjacent to one of the most treacherous stretches of water within the Great Lakes system. Unpredictable weather, murky fog banks, sudden gales, and rocky shoals earned the area the name “Shipwreck Alley”. Fire, ice, collisions, and storms have claimed nearly 200 vessels in and around Thunder Bay. Today, the 448-square-mile Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary (TBNMS or sanctuary) protects one of America's best-preserved and nationally-significant collections of shipwrecks. To date, 45 shipwrecks have been discovered within the sanctuary. In addition to helping to protect and interpret individual sites, understanding the sanctuary in the context of a maritime cultural landscape reveals a broad historical canvas that can encompass many different perspectives to foster an interconnected understanding of the maritime past. As defined by the National Park Service, a cultural landscape is a geographic area including both cultural and natural resources, coastal environments, human communities, and related scenery that is associated with historic events, activities or persons, or exhibits other cultural or aesthetic values. The maritime cultural landscape allows Thunder Bay's maritime heritage to continue to unfold as new discoveries are made and encourages an increasingly diverse public to find shared meaning in this nationally significant place.

Although the sheer number of shipwrecks is impressive, it is the range of vessel types located in the sanctuary, their excellent state of preservation and accessibility to the public that makes the collection nationally significant. From an 1844 sidewheel steamer to a modern 500-foot-long German freighter, the shipwrecks of Thunder Bay represent a microcosm of maritime commerce and travel on the Great Lakes. Well preserved by Lake Huron's cold, fresh water, the shipwrecks and related maritime heritage sites in and around Thunder Bay are historically, archaeologically and recreationally significant. NOAA designated the area as a national marine sanctuary in 2000. The sanctuary is managed jointly by NOAA and the State of Michigan under the umbrella of the 2002 Memorandum of Agreement (December 2002).

The purpose of this proposed action would be to provide long-term protection and comprehensive management for 47 additional known historic shipwrecks of special national significance, and other maritime heritage resources (i.e. docks, cribs), located outside the sanctuary's existing boundary. The action would also provide protection for historic shipwrecks and maritime heritage resources yet to be discovered. This proposed action would be compatible with the purposes and policies of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA; 16 U.S.C. 1431).

Beyond the sanctuary's existing boundaries are 47 additional known historic shipwrecks that are at risk from threats which include both human activities and natural processes. Human threats include looting and altering sanctuary shipwreck sites, and damaging or destroying sites by anchoring. Natural processes include the impacts of wind, waves, storms and ice, as well as the impact of invasive species such as zebra and quagga mussels that today cover most of Lake Huron's shipwrecks. These processes threaten the long term sustainability of historic shipwrecks and other maritime heritage resources. In order to ensure long-term protection, these 47 additional known historic shipwreck sites require the same level of research and resource protection afforded sites within the existing TBNMS boundary.

Although additional shipwreck sites exist outside the proposed boundary expansion area, NOAA's proposed action contains the sites whose protection would best complement from an archaeological, historical and recreational perspective, the resources in the existing sanctuary boundaries. Such maritime heritage resources require long-term protection and management to reduce threats that could impact their historical, archeological, recreational and educational value. There is a need to apply education and outreach efforts to shipwrecks beyond the sanctuary's existing boundary to promote responsible use of sanctuary resources and help reduce human impacts. The comprehensive and coordinated management that NOAA would provide includes extensive research, education, and outreach programs. This would fill important gaps in archeological knowledge and historical context of these shipwrecks, and enhance sustainable recreational and tourism opportunities.

While state laws and other applicable federal law (such as The Abandoned Shipwreck Act codified in 43 U.S.C. 2101, et seq.) intended to reduce the impact of human activities on historic shipwrecks and related maritime heritage resources have been effective, those laws only apply to abandoned property. Sanctuary regulation in the proposed expanded area would provide increased protection in the following ways: (1) The Sanctuary regulations would apply to all historic shipwrecks, not just abandoned shipwrecks; (2) The use of grappling hooks or other anchoring devices would be prohibited on underwater cultural resource sites that are marked with a mooring buoy; (3) “Hand-taking” of artifacts outside the Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve, but still within the revised Sanctuary boundary, would be prohibited; (4) Permit applications would be required to satisfy the Federal Archaeology Program guidelines for all sites located within the revised sanctuary boundary; and (5) as an additional enforcement mechanism, NOAA would still be able to assess civil penalties under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act for violation of sanctuary regulations.

NOAA selected the proposed boundary after considering alternatives evaluated when the sanctuary was designated in 2000; expansion alternatives later developed by the Sanctuary Advisory Council in 2007; and considerable public input during public scoping meetings in 2012. Historical and archaeological research conducted since the sanctuary's designation was used to establish the number and condition of resources within the proposed new boundary for TBNMS, as well as the historical, archeological and recreational significance of these sites. Nearly all of the known sites within the proposed action are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

NOAA designated the sanctuary as the nation's thirteenth national marine sanctuary in 2000 for the purpose of: “Providing long-term protection and management to the conservation, recreational, research, educational, and historical resources and qualities of the area.” Because new challenges and opportunities emerge with time, the NMSA requires periodic updating of sanctuary management plans (and regulations, if appropriate) to reevaluate site-specific goals and objectives and to develop management strategies and activities to ensure that the sanctuary best protects its resources. The original TBNMS management plan was written as part of the sanctuary designation process and published in the final environmental impact statement.1 The designation of the sanctuary in 2000 has had a tremendously positive socioeconomic impact on community development and maritime heritage tourism in Northeast Michigan, and as a result government officials and the public are interested in how a sanctuary expansion could further contribute to enhancing recreational and tourism opportunities for those communities. Expansion of the sanctuary boundaries could bring similar positive socioeconomic impacts to a larger geographic area in Michigan. As the idea for a boundary expansion has been considered for many years, NOAA has documented considerable support for expansion. The documentary support includes letters, resolutions, Congressional testimony, and Sanctuary Advisory Council recommendations from the past five years.2

In 2007, as part of the management plan review process, NOAA established a sanctuary advisory council boundary expansion working group to evaluate whether the boundary should be expanded to protect, manage, and interpret additional shipwrecks and other potential maritime heritage resources. The boundary expansion working group identified and considered the following study area for evaluation of boundary alternatives: a 4,110-square-mile area that extended the current sanctuary south into Alcona County, north into Presque Isle County, and east to the international border with Canada. The study area was identified based on the density of known and undiscovered resources, the historical, archaeological, and recreational significance of individual and collective resources, and the maritime landscape. On May 22, 2007, the boundary expansion working group presented this recommendation to the Sanctuary Advisory Council (SAC). The SAC responded by passing a resolution to expand the boundaries to the recommended area. Based on this recommendation, Senator Carl Levin introduced two sanctuary expansion bills into the U.S. Congress, but they were never brought to a vote.

In 2009, NOAA published an updated final management plan.3 In response to the Sanctuary Advisory Council's recommendation, the Thunder Bay NMS Final Management Plan (2009) contains a strategy (Strategy RP-1) to “Evaluate and assess a proposed expansion of the sanctuary to a 3,662-square-mile area from Alcona County to Presque Isle County, east to the international border with Canada to protect, manage, and interpret additional shipwrecks and other potential maritime heritage resources.” This action plan formed the basis for NOAA's current proposed action. The 3,662-square-mile area added to the area of the existing sanctuary would have resulted in a total sanctuary area of 4,110 square-miles.

In April 2012, NOAA held three public scoping meetings: in Alpena, Harrisville and Rogers City, which were attended by 22, 6 and 14 people, respectively. In addition, NOAA received 21 letters and emails, with an additional seven comments submitted through the online portal. Most of the comments submitted were in support of boundary expansion. In fact, several people suggested a slightly larger area than 4,110 square-miles to protect an additional five historic shipwrecks. This larger area, for a total of 4,300 square miles, is presented in this proposed action.

The proposed regulatory action would expand the boundaries of the sanctuary, increasing the total area of the sanctuary from 448 square miles to approximately 4,300 square miles. The southern boundary of the sanctuary begins where the southern boundary of Alcona County intersects with the ordinary high water mark of Lake Huron and runs east until it intersects the U.S./Canada international boundary. The eastern boundary of the sanctuary follows the international boundary until it intersects with the 45°50′ N line of latitude. The northern boundary follows this line of latitude (45°50′ N) westward until it intersects the 84°20′ W line of longitude. The western boundary extends south along this line of longitude (84°20′ W) until it intersects the ordinary high water mark at Cordwood Point. From there, the western boundary follows the ordinary high water mark as defined by Part 325, Great Lakes Submerged Lands, of P.A. 451 (1994), as amended, until it intersects the southern boundary of Alcona County. The table in Appendix A of Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary regulations provides several coordinates used to define the boundaries of the sanctuary. A map of this expanded area can be found on our Web site at http://thunderbay.noaa.gov/management/expansion.html and in the draft environmental impact statement.

Section 304(a)(4) of the NMSA requires that the terms of designation for national marine sanctuaries include: (1) The geographic area included within the Sanctuary; (2) the characteristics of the area that give it conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, research, educational, or esthetic value; and (3) the types of activities subject to regulation by NOAA to protect those characteristics. This section also specifies that the terms of the designation may be modified only by the same procedures by which the original designation is made.

To implement this action, NOAA is proposing to make changes to the TBNMS terms of designation, which were previously published in the Federal Register on June 22, 2000 (65 FR 39042). The changes would:

1. Modify Article II “Description of the Area” by changing the description of size of the sanctuary and describing the proposed new boundary for the sanctuary.

2. Modify Article III “Characteristics of the Area That Give It Particular Value” by changing the description of the nationally significant characteristics of the area included in the Sanctuary.

3. Modify Article V “Effect on Other Regulations, Leases, Permits, Licenses, and Rights” to reflect the new organization within NOAA.

The revised terms of designation are proposed to read as follows (new text in parentheses and deleted text in brackets):

Under the authority of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, as amended (the “Act” or “NMSA”), 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq., Thunder Bay and its surrounding waters offshore of Michigan, and the submerged lands under Thunder Bay and its surrounding waters, as described in Article II, are hereby designated as the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve for the purposes of providing long-term protection and management to the conservation, recreational, research, educational, and historical resources and qualities of the area. Section 304(a)(4) of the NMSA requires that the terms of designation include the geographic area included within the Sanctuary; the characteristics of the area that give it conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, research, educational, or esthetic value; and the types of activities that will be subject to regulation by the Secretary of Commerce to protect those characteristics. The terms of designation may be modified only by the procedures provided in Section 304(a) of the Act (the same procedures by which the original designation is made). Thus, the terms of designation serve as a constitution for the Sanctuary.

The Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve consists of an area of approximately (4,300) [448] square miles of waters of Lake Huron and the submerged lands thereunder, over, around, and under the underwater cultural resources in Thunder Bay. (The boundaries form a polygon by extending along the ordinary high water mark of the Michigan shoreline from approximately the northern and southern boundaries of Presque Isle and Alcona counties, respectively, cutting across the mouths of rivers and streams, and lakeward from those points along latitude lines to the U.S./Canada international boundary. A more detailed description of the boundary and a list of coordinates are set forth in the regulations for the sanctuary at 15 CFR part 922 subpart R.) [The boundary forms an approximately rectangular area by extending along the ordinary high water mark of the Michigan shoreline from the northern and southern boundaries of Alpena County, cutting across the mouths of rivers and streams, and lakeward from those points along latitude lines to longitude 83 degrees west. The coordinates of the boundary are set forth in Appendix A to the regulations.]

Thunder Bay and its surrounding waters contain approximately (92 known) [116] (historic) shipwrecks spanning more than a century of Great Lakes maritime history. (Archival research indicates that as many as 100 additional historic shipwrecks are yet to be found.) Virtually every type of vessel used on open Great Lakes waters has been documented in the Thunder Bay region, linking Thunder Bay inextricably to Great Lakes commerce. Most of the Great Lakes trades had a national, and sometimes an international, significance, and resulted in uniquely-designed vessels. Although not all of Thunder Bay's shipwrecks have been identified, studies undertaken to date indicate strong evidence of the [Bay's] (region's) national historic significance. The sunken vessels reflect transitions in ship architecture and construction methods, from wooden sailboats to early iron-hulled steamers.

(We draw s) [S]everal major conclusions regarding Thunder Bay's shipwrecks [may be drawn] from research and analysis undertaken to date: they are representative of the composition of the Great Lakes merchant marine from 1840 to 1970; they provide information on the various phases of American westward expansion; they provide information on the growth of American extraction and use of natural resources; they illustrate various phases of American industrialization; one shipwreck (Isaac M. Scott) may be used to study and interpret a specific event (the Great Storm of 1913) that had strong repercussions regionally, nationally, and internationally; and they provide interpretive material for understanding American foreign intercontinental trade within the Great Lakes. (In addition to the submerged resources described above, there are other aspects of the region's maritime cultural landscape. A cultural landscape is a geographic area including both cultural and natural resources, coastal environments, human communities, and related scenery that is associated with historic events, activities or persons, or exhibits other cultural or aesthetic values. The Thunder Bay region is comprised of many shoreline features such as beached shipwrecks, lighthouses, aids to navigation, abandoned docks, working waterfronts and Native American sites. Also important are the intangible elements such as spiritual places and legends.) Thunder Bay was established as the first State of Michigan Underwater Preserve in 1981 to protect underwater cultural resources. Increasing public interest in underwater cultural resources underscores the importance of continued efforts to discover, explore, document, study and to provide long-term, comprehensive protection for the Bay's shipwrecks and other underwater cultural resources.

Section 2. Other. If any valid regulation issued by any Federal, State, or local authority of competent jurisdiction, regardless of when issued, conflicts with a Sanctuary regulation, the regulation deemed by the Director, Office of (National Marine Sanctuaries) [Ocean and Coastal Resource Management], National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or his or her designee, in consultation with the State of Michigan, to be more protective of Sanctuary resources shall govern. Pursuant to Section 304(c)(1) of this Act, 16 U.S.C. 1434(c)(1), no valid lease, permit, license, approval, or other authorization issued by any Federal, State, or local authority of competent jurisdiction, or any right of subsistence use or access, may be terminated by the Secretary of Commerce, or his or her designee, as a result of this designation, or as a result of any Sanctuary regulation, if such lease, permit, license, approval, or other authorization, or right of subsistence use or access was issued or in existence as of the effective date of this designation. However, the Secretary of Commerce, or his or her designee, in consultation with the State of Michigan, may regulate the exercise of such authorization or right consistent with the purposes for which the Sanctuary is designated.

NOAA has prepared a draft environmental impact statement to evaluate the impacts of this proposed rulemaking. No significant adverse impacts to resources and the human environment are expected. Rather, long-term beneficial impacts are anticipated if the proposed action is implemented. Under NEPA (43 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an environmental assessment would have sufficed to analyze the impacts of this action since NOAA is proposing that no significant impacts are likely. However, the NMSA requires NOAA to publish a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) regardless of the intensity of the impacts of the proposed action if NOAA is considering changing the terms of designation of a sanctuary (16 U.S.C. 1434 (a)(2)). Copies of the DEIS are available at the address and Web site listed in the ADDRESSES section of this proposed rule.

This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant within the meaning of Executive Order 12866.

NOAA has concluded this regulatory action does not have federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a federalism assessment under Executive Order 13132.

Concurrent with the development of this proposed rule, NOAA invited the Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority (CORA) to participate in government-to-government consultation. CORA gathers representatives from the Bay Mills Indian Community, Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians under its mantle. NOAA plans to continue collaboration with the CORA and invite each individual tribe to government-to-government consultation. Consultation under E.O. 13175 is expected to be completed before the publication of the final rule.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601(3)) defines “small business” as having the same meaning as “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. Pursuant to the Small Business Act, a small business concern is one which is independently owned and operated and which is not dominant in its field of operation (15 U.S.C. 632(a)(1)).

Small business concerns operating within the sanctuary include consumptive recreational charter businesses and non-consumptive recreational charter businesses. For the area subject to this proposed action, these include:

A sports and recreation business is considered a “small” business if it has annual receipts not in excess of $7 million (13 CFR 121.201). Three consumptive recreational charter businesses (also known as commercial passenger fishing vessels or CPFVs) are active in the TBNMS.

Both sports and recreation businesses, and scenic and sightseeing transportation businesses are considered “small” businesses if they have annual receipts not in excess of $7 million (13 CFR 121.201). Over six non-consumptive recreational charter businesses take passengers to the TBNMS. These businesses primarily support non-consumptive diving, snorkeling and sightseeing activities.

It has been determined that the proposed prohibitions that would apply to the area under consideration for expansion would not interfere with the operation of existing charter diving and sightseeing small businesses because these regulations are compatible with sustainable tourism. In fact, protecting the shipwrecks may make them better recreational venues. Therefore, there will be no adverse economic impact to recreational charter diving and sightseeing small businesses operating in the proposed sanctuary expansion area.

Because NOAA is not proposing any fishing regulations as part of this action, there will be no adverse economic impact to recreational charter fishing small businesses operating in the proposed sanctuary expansion area. Other sanctuary regulations are not expected to affect charter fishing small businesses either.

According to a regional 2005 study on total visitor spending, the sanctuary benefits the local economy by partially contributing $92 million in sales, $35.8 million in personal income to residents, $51.3 million in value added and 1,704 jobs through increased tourism.

NOAA works with local officials to recruit new businesses, as well as to expand existing operations. Alpena Shipwreck Tours serves as an example of a new business recruited by NOAA and local officials. In the summer of 2011, Alpena Shipwreck Tours began glass-bottomed boat tours in the sanctuary. The company invested $800,000+ in the 65' glass-bottomed vessel, and has been successful thus far. NOAA has also worked with local groups to recruit and promote new outfitters, kayak tours, bike rentals, dive shops and charters.

In addition, the sanctuary's visitor center—Great Lakes Maritime Heritage Center—is a major tourist destination for the region, hosting approximately 60,000 visitors annually. This is significant because the population of the city of Alpena itself is only 11,000 people.

Because the impacts of this proposed rule on the recreational charter fishing businesses and the recreational charter diving business would have no impact or actually a beneficial economic impact, the Chief Counsel for Regulation certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy at SBA that this rulemaking would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This proposed rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) which has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under control number 0648-0141. The public reporting burden for national marine sanctuary general permits is estimated to average 1 hour 30 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

Nationwide, NOAA issues approximately 200 national marine sanctuary general permits each year. Of this amount, TBNMS does not typically issue any sanctuary general permits. The permitting regulations for TBNMS specify that under certain conditions a person may conduct an otherwise prohibited activity if it is conducted in accordance with a state permit and the State Archaeologist certifies to NOAA that the activity will be conducted consistent with the Memorandum of Agreement. In the absence of certification from the State Archaeologist or if no State permit is required, a person may secure a sanctuary general permit directly from NOAA to conduct a prohibited activity if the activity is conducted in accordance with a Federal permit. Even though this proposed rule may result in a few additional permit applications, due to the overall larger area under management, this rulemaking would not appreciably change the average annual number of respondents on a national level or the reporting burden for this information requirement. Therefore, NOAA has determined that the proposed regulations do not necessitate a modification to its information collection approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Comments regarding this burden estimate, or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, may be sent to NOAA (see ADDRESSES) and to OMB by email to OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov or fax to (202) 395-7285. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA; Pub. L. 89-665; 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) is intended to preserve historical and archaeological sites in the United States of America. The act created the National Register of Historic Places, the list of National Historic Landmarks, and the State Historic Preservation Offices. Section 106 of the NHPA requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment. The historic preservation review process mandated by Section 106 is outlined in regulations issued by ACHP (36 CFR part 800). The Michigan State Historic Preservation Office, which implements section 106 of the NHPA, is located in the Michigan State Housing Development Authority. NOAA has and continues to consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer on matters related to Section 106 of the NHPA. A programmatic agreement will be developed if the expansion of the sanctuary is finalized and if it is determined to be necessary.

NOAA requests comments on this proposed rule for 60 days after publication of this notice.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, NOAA proposes amending part 922, title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its State program includes, among other things, “a State law which provides for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the requirements of this Act. . . . ; and rules and regulations consistent with regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to this Act.” See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the North Dakota program on December 15, 1980. You can find background information on the North Dakota program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and conditions of approval of the North Dakota program in the December 15, 1980 Federal Register (45 FR 82214). You can also find later actions concerning North Dakota's program and program amendments at 30 CFR 934.15, 934.16, and 934.30.

By letter dated November 14, 2012, North Dakota sent us a proposed amendment to its program (Administrative Record Document ID No. OSM-2012-0021-0002) under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). North Dakota sent the amendment in response to a October 2, 2009 letter (Document ID No. OSM-2012-0021-0004) that we sent to North Dakota in accordance with 30 CFR 732.17(c), and to include the changes made at its own initiative. The full text of the program amendment is available for you to read at the locations listed above under ADDRESSES.

Specifically, North Dakota proposes to add and change a number of rules in the North Dakota Administrative Code (NDAC) Section 69-5.2. The changes regard the use of OSM's Applicant Violator System (AVS) prior to the approval of permits, renewals, and certain revisions. The proposed rule also contains procedures for coal operators to use if they want to submit challenges to information in the AVS. These changes are being proposed to bring North Dakota's coal program into compliance with the counterpart Federal rules regarding the AVS and ownership and control. Additionally, North Dakota is submitting a proposed rule change that adds specificity to the format requirements of electronic applications and a change which updates a provision to no longer require the renewal of a permit once surface mining is completed and only reclamation work remains.

We announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the January 29, 2013 Federal Register (78 FR 6062; Administrative Record No. OSM-2012-0021-0001), provided an opportunity for a public hearing or meeting, and invited public comment on the proposed amendment. Because no one requested a public hearing or meeting, none was held. The public comment period ended on February 28, 2013. We received a letter from the Bureau of Land Management stating that they had no comment. We did not receive any comments from the general public.

During our review of the amendment, we identified an area of concern regarding the fact that North Dakota failed to provide a counterpart rule to 30 CFR 774.12(c)(1). We notified North Dakota of our concerns on March 13, 2013 (Administrative Record No. OSM-2012-0021-0007 and OSM-2012-0021-0008). North Dakota responded in a letter dated May 10, 2013 by revising their proposed amendment language (Administrative Record No. OSM-2012-0021-0009). Specifically, North Dakota corrected a drafting error which occurred from the use of a previous version of the 30 CFR rules by modifying NDAC Section 69-05.2-10-09. The proposed modification provides State counterpart language to 30 CFR 778.11(d), which is referenced in 30 CFR 774.12(c)(1).

Under the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), we are seeking your comments on whether the amendment satisfies the applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If we approve the amendment, it will become part of the North Dakota program.

If you submit written comments, they should be specific, confined to issues pertinent to the proposed regulations, and explain the reason for any recommended change(s). We appreciate any and all comments, but those most useful and likely to influence decisions on the final regulations will be those that either involve personal experience or include citations to and analyses of SMCRA, its legislative history, its implementing regulations, case law, other pertinent Tribal or Federal laws or regulations, technical literature, or other relevant publications.

We cannot ensure that comments received after the close of the comment period (see DATES) or sent to an address other than those listed above (see ADDRESSES) will be included in the docket for this rulemaking and considered.

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at anytime. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

If you wish to speak at the public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 4 p.m., m.d.t. on July 1, 2013. If you are disabled and need reasonable accommodations to attend a public hearing, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will arrange the location and time of the hearing with those persons requesting the hearing. If no one requests an opportunity to speak, we will not hold the hearing.

To assist the transcriber and ensure an accurate record, we request, if possible, that each person who speaks at a public hearing provide us with a written copy of his or her comments. The public hearing will continue on the specified date until everyone scheduled to speak has been given an opportunity to be heard. If you are in the audience and have not been scheduled to speak and wish to do so, you will be allowed to speak after those who have been scheduled. We will end the hearing after everyone scheduled to speak and others present in the audience who wish to speak, have been heard.

If only one person requests an opportunity to speak, we may hold a public meeting rather than a public hearing. If you wish to meet with us to discuss the amendment, please request a meeting by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All such meetings are open to the public and, if possible, we will post notices of meetings at the locations listed under ADDRESSES. We will make a written summary of each meeting a part of the administrative record.

This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review).

When a State submits a program amendment to OSM for review, our regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(h) require us to publish a notice in the Federal Register indicating receipt of the proposed amendment, its text or a summary of its terms, and an opportunity for public comment. We conclude our review of the proposed amendment after the close of the public comment period and determine whether the amendment should be approved, approved in part, or not approved. At that time, we will also make the determinations and certifications required by the various laws and executive orders governing the rulemaking process and include them in the final rule.

We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when the comment is successfully transmitted. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when the comment is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number (USCG-2013-0327) in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.”

If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments.

To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number (USCG-2013-0327) in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008 issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

We do not now plan to hold a public meeting, but you may submit a request for one using one of the four methods specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

On April 6, 2007, the Coast Guard published an NPRM for the events that are listed within this regulation and made them available for public comment (72 FR 17062). No comments were received. The Coast Guard followed this NPRM with a final rule on September 27, 2007.

This proposed rule will remove 1 marine event and amend 5 annual marine events listed in 33 CFR 100. This proposed rule will amend 33 CFR Part 100 by making updates within the following sections:

33 CFR 100.903, Harborfest Dragon Boat Race; South Haven, MI. The Harborfest Dragon Boat Race is an annual event involving an estimated 250 participants maneuvering self-propelled vessels within a portion of the Black River in South Haven, MI. The organizer for this event submitted an application showing a date that is different from what is currently codified within the CFR. For that reason the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR 100.903 to reflect an updated effective date for this event of Saturday and Sunday of the 4th weekend of June, from 6 a.m. until 7 p.m.

33 CFR 100.904; Celebrate Americafest; Green Bay, WI. This event will be removed by this proposed rule because it has been codified within 33 CFR 165.929 Safety Zones; Annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone. The Coast Guard determined from past experience with this event that a safety zone best addresses the safety hazards associated with this event.

33 CFR 100.905; Door County Triathlon; Door County, WI. The swim portion of the Door County Triathlon is expected to involve thousands of participants in the waters of Horseshoe Bay—a portion of Green Bay. As this event is currently listed, the effective date expired on July 23 and 24, 2011. The Coast Guard has spoken with the event organizer and confirmed that this Triathlon is expected to reoccur annually. For that reason, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR 100.905 to reflect an updated effective date for this event. Likewise, this rule proposes to amend the location and size of the regulated area for this event. This rule proposes to shrink the size of the regulated area by 1000 yards and move the regulated area into the waters of Horseshoe Bay, some 600 yards southeast of its currently-listed location.

33 CFR 100.906; Grand Haven Coast Guard Festival Waterski Show; Grand Haven, MI. This rule proposes to amend the effective date of this event so that, should the date change, the Coast Guard will give notice to the public of the effective date by Notice of Enforcement.

33 CFR 100.907; Milwaukee River Challenge; Milwaukee, WI.

The Milwaukee River Challenge is a rowing competition involving 40′ and 60′ rowing shells. The event is expected to involve hundreds of participants and spectators. The event organizer for the Milwaukee River Challenge informed the Coast Guard that the Milwaukee River Challenge Race will take place at an earlier time than is currently listed in 33 CFR 100.907. The event organizer further informed the Coast Guard that the rowing shells involved in the Milwaukee River Challenge will race along a portion of the Menomonee River as well as the Milwaukee River. As it is currently listed in 33 CFR 100.907, only the Milwaukee River is named within the “Regulated Area” section.

33 CFR 100.909; Chinatown Chamber of Commerce Dragon Boat Race; Chicago, IL. The Chinatown Chamber of Commerce Dragon Boat Race is an annual event involving an estimated 1000 participants maneuvering self-propelled vessels within a portion of the Chicago River in Chicago, IL. The organizer for this event submitted an application showing a date that is different from what is currently codified within the CFR, and is expected to differ in the future. For that reason the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR 100.909 to reflect an updated effective date for this event of the second Friday and Saturday of July from 11:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

For each of these events, the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, has determined that the likely combination of a race involving a large number of competitors, spectators, and transiting commercial craft in a congested area of water presents significant safety risks. These risks include collisions among competitor and spectator vessels, injury to swimmers from transiting water craft, capsizing, and drowning.

This proposed rule is intended to ensure safety of life and property on the navigable waters immediately prior to, during, and immediately after regattas or marine parades. This proposed rule will establish restrictions upon, and control the movement of, vessels in a specified area of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone.

The Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan will notify the public of the enforcement of the special local regulations in this proposal by all appropriate means. Such means of notification will include, but are not limited to, Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners. The events within this proposed rule are expected to occur on certain dates each year. Because these dates are subject to change, the Coast Guard will provide notice of any change in date via a Notice of Enforcement. Additionally, the Coast Guard will also provide a notice via a Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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

This proposed 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 proposed 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 special local regulations established by this proposed rule will be periodic, of short duration, and designed to minimize impact on navigable waters. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the proposed regulated areas when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

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 proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in affected waters within the Lake Michigan Zone on the days in which these special local regulations are enforced.

This proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section above.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed 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 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed 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. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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

A rule has implications for federalism under 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 proposed 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 proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.

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

This proposed 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 proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This proposed rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

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

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

We have analyzed this proposed 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 made a determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of special local regulations 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. 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 proposed rule.

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

Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking A. Public Participation and Information

We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online (via http://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online via www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when the comment is successfully transmitted. A comment submitted via fax, hand delivery, or mail, will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when the comment is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Submit a Comment” on the line associated with this rulemaking.

If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2; by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments.

To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “OPEN DOCKET FOLDER” on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

We do not now plan to hold a public meeting, but you may submit a request for one using one of the four methods specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

The Coast Guard published temporary final rules (TFRs) in the Federal Register for this event on September 13, 2010 (75 FR 55477), and September 8, 2011 (76 FR 55564). Because this event will recur annually, the Captain of the Port Detroit is proposing to establish a permanent safety zone and thus, alleviate the need to publish TFRs in the future.

Each year, the Revolution 3 Triathlon occurs at Cedar Point near Sandusky, OH. This event occurs each year for two consecutive days during the first or second week of September. During the first leg of the event, participants enter the water and swim along a pre-determined course. While the primary course is on the eastern side of Cedar Point, an alternate location is on the western side of Cedar Point, in the vicinity of the Cedar Point Marina. The likely combination of large numbers of inexperienced recreational boaters, possibly varying lake conditions and large number of swimmers in the water could easily result in serious injuries or fatalities. The Captain of the Port Detroit proposes to establish this permanent safety to protect against such injuries and fatalities.

As suggested above, this proposed regulation is intended to ensure safety of the public and vessels during the Revolution 3 triathlon. This proposed rule will become effective 30 days after the final rule is published in the Federal Register. However, the safety zones will only be enforced annually for two consecutive days during the first or second week of September from 6:50 a.m. until 10 a.m., with exact dates to be determined annually.

The proposed safety zones for the Revolution 3 Triathlon, Lake Erie, Sandusky Bay, Cedar Point, OH, will encompass all waters of Lake Erie, Sandusky Bay, Cedar Point, OH within the swim courses located at position 41-29′-00.04″ N 082-40′-48.16″ W to 41-29′-19.28″ N 082-40′-38.97″ W to 41-29′-02.51″ N 082-40′-20.82″ W to 41-28′-45.52″ N 082-40′-35.75″ W then following the shoreline to the point of origin. These coordinates are North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). In the event that weather requires changing locations an alternate race course site will encompass all waters of Lake Erie, Sandusky Bay, Cedar Point, OH extending outward 100 yards on either side of a line running between 41-28′-38.59″ N 082-41′-10.51″ W and 41-28′-17.25″ N 082-40′-54.09″ W running adjacent to the Cedar Point Marina. These coordinates are North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

The Captain of the Port Detroit will use all appropriate means to notify the public when the safety zones in this proposal will be enforced. Consistent with 33 CFR 165.7(a), such means of may include, among other things, publication in the Federal Register, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Local Notice to Mariners, or, upon request, by facsimile (fax). Also, the Captain of the Port will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners notifying the public if enforcement these safety zones in this section are cancelled prematurely.

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the proposed safety zones during the period of enforcement is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit, or his designated representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

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

This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We conclude that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zones established by this proposed rule will be relatively small and enforced for relatively short time. Also, each safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, each safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit unrestricted to portions of the waterways not affected by the safety zones. Thus, restrictions on vessel movements within any particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through each safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port. On the whole, the Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the activation of these safety zones.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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 proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the above portions of Lake Erie during the period that either of the proposed safety zones is being enforced.

These proposed safety zones will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for all of the reasons discussed in the above Regulatory Planning and Review section. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed 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 proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. If this proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact LTJG Benjamin Nessia, Response Department, Marine Safety Unit Toledo, Coast Guard; telephone (419)418-6040, email Benjamin.B.Nessia@uscg.mil. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it 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 proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.

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

This proposed 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 proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This proposed rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

This proposed 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.

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.

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

We have analyzed this proposed 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 made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves the establishment of safety zones and thus, is categorically excluded under paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

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

We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2013-0060), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online (via http://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online via www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, click on the “submit a comment” box, which will then become highlighted in blue. In the “Document Type” drop down menu select “Proposed Rule” and insert “USCG-2013-0060” in the “Keyword” box. Click “Search” then click on the balloon shape in the “Actions” column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments.

To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, click on the “read comments” box, which will then become highlighted in blue. In the “Keyword” box insert “USCG-2013-0060” and click “Search.” Click the “Open Docket Folder” in the “Actions” column. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.

Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one using one of the four methods specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

The legal basis for the proposed rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231, 1233; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to define regulatory safety zones.

This rulemaking would update the table of existing permanent safety zones in order to meet the Coast Guard's intended purpose of ensuring safety during these annual recurring events.

The Coast Guard proposes to add three new permanent safety zones to 33 CFR 165.118 (Safety Zones). The proposed rule would update the list of annual recurring events in the existing regulation found in 33 CFR 165.118 for the Coast Guard Captain of the Port (COTP) Boston Zone with the addition of the following three new permanent safety zones; (6.5) Hull Youth Football Carnival Fireworks, (8.8) The Boston Triathlon, and (9.7) Boston Harbor Sharkfest Swim. As in the original rule, the amended TABLE provides the event name, sponsor, and type, as well as approximate times, dates, and locations of the events. All regulatory details, including public notification procedures, remain the same as published in the original rule.

We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

This proposed 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, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.

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

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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 proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: owners or operators of vessels intending to transit, fish, or anchor in the areas where the listed annual recurring events are being held.

The proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the same reasons outlined in the original rule. In addition, this action is only modifying an existing rule which, in and of itself, did not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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 proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. 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 under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have 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 proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This proposed rule would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

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

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.

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

We have analyzed this proposed 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 made a preliminary determination that this action may be one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.

A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination will be available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. This proposed rule involves water activities including swimming events and fireworks displays. This rule may be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction.

We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

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

We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number USCG-2013-0322 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.”

If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments.

To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number USCG-2013-0322 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one, using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

The legal basis for the proposed rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish regulated navigation areas and other 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.

On Sunday, September 29, 2013, the Swim Around Charleston is scheduled to take place on the Wando River, the Cooper River, Charleston Harbor, and the Ashley River, in Charleston, South Carolina. The Swim Around Charleston will consist of a 12 mile swim that starts at Remley's Point on the Wando River, crosses the main shipping channel of Charleston Harbor, and finishes at the I-526 bridge and boat landing on the Ashley River.

The purpose of the proposed rule is to ensure the safety of the swimmers, participant vessels, spectators, and the general public during the Swim Around Charleston.

The proposed rule would establish temporary moving safety zones of 50 yards in front of the lead safety vessel preceding the first race participant, 50 yards behind the safety vessel trailing the last race participants, and at all times extend 100 yards on either side of the race participants and safety vessels. The temporary safety zones would be enforced from 9 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. on September 29, 2013.

Persons and vessels would be prohibited from entering or transiting through the safety zones unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. Persons and vessels would be able to request authorization to enter or transit through the safety zones by contacting the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at (843) 740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16.

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

This proposed 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 proposed rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The safety zones would only be enforced for a total of seven hours; (2) the safety zones would move with the participant vessels so that once the swimmers clear a portion of the waterway, the safety zones would no longer be enforced in that portion of the waterway; (3) although persons and vessels would not be able to enter or transit through the safety zones without authorization from the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, they would be able to operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; (4) persons and vessels would still be able to enter or transit through the safety zones if authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative; and (5) the Coast Guard would provide advance notification of the safety zones 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 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.

This proposed 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 the Wando River, the Cooper River, Charleston Harbor, and the Ashley River in Charleston, South Carolina encompassed within the safety zones from 9 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. on September 29, 2013. For the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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 proposed 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. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This proposed rule would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

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

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

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

We have analyzed this proposed 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 made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. This proposed rule involves establishing temporary moving safety zones as described in figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Commandant Instruction. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

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

Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking MSD Marine Safety Detachment A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number USCG-2013-0285 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Submit a Comment” on the line associated with this rulemaking.

If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments.

To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number USCG-2013-0285 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.

Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

We plan to hold a public meeting on August 1, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. at USCG Sector San Juan and on August 8, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. at MSD St. Thomas. We plan to post the minutes of this meeting in the docket. For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the public meeting, contact the person named in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, above.

Between 1998 and 2009 the USCG has published 11 regulations regarding safety and security zones within the Sector San Juan Area of Responsibility (AOR). These 11 regulations are currently: 33 CFR 165.754 Safety Zone: San Juan Harbor, San Juan, PR; 33 CFR 165.755 Safety Zone; Guayanilla, Puerto Rico; 33 CFR 165.757 Safety Zones; Ports of Ponce, Tallaboa, and Guayanilla, Puerto Rico and Limetree Bay, St. Croix, U.S.V.I.; 33 CFR 165.758 Security Zone; San Juan, Puerto Rico; 33 CFR 165.762 Security Zone; St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands; 33 CFR 165.763 Moving and Fixed Security Zone, Port of Fredericksted, Saint Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands; 33 CFR 165.766 Security Zone: HOVENSA Refinery, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands; 33 CFR 165.770 Security Zone: HOVENSA Refinery, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands; 33 CFR 165.771 Safety Zone; Bahia de Ponce, Puerto Rico; 33 CFR 165.776 Security Zone; Coast Guard Base San Juan, San Juan Harbor, Puerto Rico; and 33 CFR 165.778 Security Zone; Port of Mayaguez, Puerto Rico. The regulations as they are currently drafted are repetitive, disorganized, and some are unnecessary. This regulation change will reorganize the current regulations into regional regulations, remove unneeded regulations (e.g. a permanent security zone around an oil terminal), add safety zone regulations regarding port closures in times of natural and other disasters, and safety zones for fireworks displays.

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. 1226, 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; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

The purpose of the regulation is to reorganize the regulations into four regional areas, harmonize the regulations within the Sector San Juan AOR, remove unnecessary regulations, and add regulations regarding port closures in the event of natural and other disasters and safety zones for firework barges.

The main change of the regulations is the consolidation of 11 existing regulations into four regional regulations and a natural and other disasters safety zone. The consolidated regulation would be published as 33 CFR 165.754 for the North Coast of Puerto Rico; 33 CFR 165.755 for the South Coast of Puerto Rico; 33 CFR 165.757 for St. Thomas; 33 CFR 165.758 for St. Croix; and 33 CFR 165.762 Natural and Other Disasters Safety Zone for Sector San Juan COTP Zone.

Safety and Security Zones; North Coast of Puerto Rico (33 CFR 165.754) would combine the regulations set forth in the current 33 CFR 165.754, 33 CFR 165.758, and 33 CFR 165.776. This new regulation would not alter the security zone for the Coast Guard Base and cruise ships. However, the moving safety zone for Liquefied Hazardous Gas (LHG) would be altered from the existing distance of .5 NM to 100 yards to align with the rest of the LHG safety zones in the AOR, and also it will add a fixed 50 yard safety zone around the vessel at all times while the vessel is moored. Additionally, a safety zone for certain vessels and firework barges would be added, establishing at all times a safety zone around vessels that pose a higher risk of injury to people or property without publishing Temporary Final Rules for each individual event, which often are done with minimal notice to the public.

Safety and Security Zones; South Coast of Puerto Rico (33 CFR 165.755) would combine the regulations set forth in the current 33 CFR 165.755, 33 CFR 165.778, and the parts of 33 CFR 165.757 that regulate Guayanilla, Tallaboa, and Ponce. This new regulation would not alter the security zone for cruise ships. The safety zone for LHG while the vessel is transiting will remain unaltered, however a fixed 50-yard security zone would be added around the vessel at all times while the vessel is moored. Additionally, a safety zone for certain vessels and firework barges would be added, establishing at all times a safety zone around these vessels that pose a higher risk of injury to people or property without necessitating publication of a Temporary Final Rules for each individual event, which often are done with minimal notice to the public.

Safety and Security Zones; St. Croix, USVI (33 CFR 165.757) would combine the regulations set forth in the current 33 CFR 165.763 and the parts of 33 CFR 165.757 that regulate Limetree Bay. This new regulation would not alter the security zone for cruise ships. The safety zone for LHG while the vessel is moving will remain unaltered, however a fixed 50 yard security zone would be added around the vessel at all times while the vessel is moored. Additionally, a safety zone for certain vessels and firework barges would be added, establishing at all times a safety zone around these vessels that pose a higher risk of injury to people or property without necessitating publication of a Temporary Final Rule for each individual event, which are often done with minimal notice to the public.

Safety and Security Zones; St. Thomas, USVI (33 CFR 165.758) would include the regulations set forth in the current 33 CFR 165.762. This new regulation would not alter the security zone for cruise ships. However, a safety zone for certain vessels and firework barges would be added, establishing at all times a safety zone around these vessels that pose a higher risk of injury to people or property without necessitating publication of Temporary Final Rules for each individual event, which are often done with minimal notice to the public. Three safety zones for reoccurring firework displays will be added to this regulation.

Safety Zone; Sector San Juan COTP Zone Natural and Other Disasters Port Closure (33 CFR 165.762) would be added to provide the legal jurisdiction to close a ports affected by natural and other disasters. In the past, temporary regulations regarding port closures have been published after natural and other disasters; however, publishing this notice in a permanent regulation provides better advance notice to the public regarding when port closures should be expected to occur, and would only require publication of a Notice of Enforcement during the storm itself, increasing efficiency and reducing the workload to the Coast Guard. There will be no change in the manner in which the public is notified by the Coast Guard of a port closure.

Disestablishment of the following regulations: the current 33 CFR 165.766 and 33 CFR 165.770. Both of these regulations are for the permanent security zone around HOVENSA refinery; however, this facility is no longer operating as a refinery and is now only an oil terminal. Even if the refinery were to become operational again, disestablishment of the security zone would not stop the refinery from becoming operational again. Similarly, the disestablishment of the current 33 CFR 165.771, the regulation for a safety zone around an LNG vessel transiting into Ponce, PR is unnecessary. This regulation is not needed as only two LNG vessels have entered Ponce, PR in recent history. Also, the proposed regulations concerning “certain vessels” will allow for the establishment of a safety zone if LNG vessels frequent Ponce, PR in the future.

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

This proposed 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 regulation is not significant regulatory action because most of the proposed regulations already exist in some form; such as natural and other disasters safety zones as a temporary final rule for each individual natural or other disasters, security zones around cruise ships, safety zones around LHG vessels, and firework safety zones. The regulations that are being added are not expected to have a significant regulatory action due to the infrequency of use for the new moving safety zones around certain vessels. The addition of the safety zone regarding moored LHG vessels should not have a significant effect because it is not anticipated to impede any other commercial traffic. The removal of the LHG safety zone for Ponce would have no effect as it has not been used since it was published.

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.

These safety and security zones would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Evaluation section above.

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 proposed 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. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed rule would not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This proposed rule would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

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

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

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

We have analyzed this proposed 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 proposed rule involves amending, reorganization, and republication of existing safety and security zones around specific vessels of less than a week in duration and the addition of port closures that would be otherwise published as TFR. This rule will be categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination will be available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

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

Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding this priority. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in developing the final priority, we urge you to identify clearly the specific section of the priority that each comment addresses.

We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from this proposed priority. Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program.

During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about this notice in room 5055, 550 12th Street SW., PCP, Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.

Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Purpose of Program: The Rehabilitation Long-Term Training program provides financial assistance for—

(1) Projects that provide basic or advanced training leading to an academic degree in areas of personnel shortages in rehabilitation as identified by the Secretary;

(2) Projects that provide a specified series of courses or program of study leading to the award of a certificate in areas of personnel shortages in rehabilitation as identified by the Secretary; and

(3) Projects that provide support for medical residents enrolled in residency training programs in the specialty of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR Parts 385 and 386.

This notice contains one proposed priority.

Due to the changes in the economic circumstances in many States, people with disabilities are facing significant employment challenges. According to Krepcio and Martin (2012), some of those changes in the economy are characterized as: shifting job functions; increasing demands for certifications and technical skills; rapid changes in technology; and frequent and longer periods of unemployment, particularly for persons with disabilities. State VR agencies and their partners must respond to these changes by asking the question: In this new economy, where and how can the VR profession add true and targeted value to achieve the goal of meaningful careers and independence for persons with disabilities?

It is equally important for the Department to ask this question about rehabilitation training grants authorized under Section 302 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. For example, the funding priority under the Rehabilitation Long-Term Training program has not changed in over two decades. The Department believes that a significant redesign of this priority is needed in order to help ensure that personnel trained under this program are prepared to help consumers achieve high-quality employment in today's economy. In order to support the redesign of the priority, the Department conducted two activities to obtain more information about the changes affecting the VR field. These activities were designed to engage grant recipients, consumers with disabilities, stakeholder groups, employers, and other partners in a discussion about the changes in the economy and how to better prepare rehabilitation counselors to meet the current employment needs of individuals with disabilities.

First, on November 8, 2012, the Department published a “Request for Information” (RFI) in the Federal Register (77 FR 66959) pertaining to the Rehabilitation Long-Term Training program. The purpose of the RFI was to collect data focused on the following four areas: (1) Challenges facing State VR agencies, counselors, and training programs; (2) effective practices aimed at increasing the supply, qualifications, and retention of VR counselors; (3) proposed changes to the Rehabilitation Long-Term Training program that reflect the needs of VR consumers; and (4) new and emerging skill sets needed by VR counselors in order to prepare individuals with disabilities for employment in the current and future labor markets. The Department received 61 comments, some of which provided examples and additional context in response to each of these four areas, and some of which supported the current priorities of the Rehabilitation Long-Term Training program.

Second, in December 2012, the Department participated in a National Employment Conference. The theme of this conference was “The New Economy: Re-think, Re-Align, Re-Invent,” and included participants from State VR agencies, consumers with disabilities, businesses, stakeholders, and Federal agency partners from the Departments of Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Labor, and the Social Security Administration. The goal of this conference was to explore several questions, including:

• What additional information do we need in order to broaden and strengthen our understanding of the new economy and its implications for people with disabilities?

• What are the most important aspects of our current system that should be preserved in order to meet the challenges of a new economy, and, alternatively, what aspects of our current system should be terminated as unproductive?

• What capacities do we need to develop within our system to better serve the needs of people with disabilities in the new economy?

• Finally, what relationships do we need to develop or strengthen in order to support people with disabilities in finding employment in the new economy?

The Department continues to pose many of these questions to its partners and stakeholders.

Both of these activities contributed to the redesign of a funding priority for the Rehabilitation Long-Term Training program. The goal of this priority is to increase the skills of rehabilitation counseling students so that upon graduation they are prepared to effectively meet the needs and demands of consumers with disabilities and employers. Therefore, the priority will require applicants to provide projected employment needs for and shortages of rehabilitation counselors in their region; describe how they will implement specific grant requirements to comply with 34 CFR Part 386; strengthen the curriculum for training rehabilitation counselors, including incorporating practices that will ensure students are prepared to assist individuals with disabilities to obtain competitive employment in the current and future labor market and integrating the latest technology into methods of instruction; evaluate student proficiency; and evaluate the program, including the effect the program has over a period of time to fill vacancies in the State VR agency with qualified counselors. The redesign of this priority under the Rehabilitation Long-Term Training program is the first step in a much larger effort to ensure that students enrolled in degree programs receive the necessary training to help consumers achieve high-quality employment in today's economy.

The following is a summary of data collected from the RFI that supports the need for the Department to redesign the priority under the Rehabilitation Long-Term Training program in order to respond to changes in the VR field.

First, commenters indicated that for a variety of reasons, over the next five years, there will be a shortage of qualified VR counselors to meet the needs of State VR agencies. Based on data the Department collected for FY 2012, 8,360 counselors were employed by State VR agencies. Based on their own State-level data, numerous commenters representing State VR agencies provided projections of the need for VR counselors to meet current and anticipated demands. In making these projections, several factors were considered, such as the pending retirement of current VR counselors, the scarcity of qualified counselors in certain geographical locations (e.g. rural areas), and staff turnover resulting from relatively low State salaries. Based on an aggregation of this State-level information, the Department estimates that there will be a need for 1,800 VR counselors over the next 5 years, approximately 360 new VR counselors per year. For these reasons, commenters expressed strong support for increasing the number of grants awarded under the Rehabilitation Long-Term Training program that emphasize the training of rehabilitation counselors.

Second, a number of commenters provided information to support the need for potential rehabilitation counselors to obtain master's degrees. State VR agencies, the commenters explained, are required to develop standards for their counselors under a Comprehensive System of Personnel Development (CSPD) that are consistent with any national, State-approved, or State-recognized certification, licensing, or registration requirements. Most State VR agencies have adopted the standard for a qualified rehabilitation counselor established by the Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification (CRCC), which is described at www.crccertification.com. Meeting this standard requires a master's degree in rehabilitation counseling or a related field, and commenters indicated that many State VR agencies are unable to comply with their CSPD requirements and have resorted to hiring individuals with a bachelor's degree in order to fill vacant positions. As a result, State VR agencies must provide additional training for these individuals to meet the CSPD requirements, which may delay compliance with the Rehabilitation Act and adversely impact positive employment outcomes for consumers. Further, State VR agencies have limited funds for additional training, thereby making the Department's financial support for students obtaining a master's degree critical to ensuring that State VR agencies comply with CSPD requirements and that limited funding is used effectively.

Third, commenters noted that staff in State VR agencies need more training to effectively work with individuals who experience a wide range of disabilities, issues, and challenges. In particular, individuals with autism, individuals with mental health issues, transition-age youth with disabilities, and individuals with disabilities who have been involved in the criminal justice system comprise an increasing percentage of State VR agency caseloads. Rehabilitation counseling programs that prepare students to use current evidence-based and emerging practices to assist consumers receiving VR services to obtain and maintain employment across this range of disabilities, issues, and challenges are greatly needed.

Furthermore, rehabilitation counselors must be able to prepare consumers receiving VR services to meet the demands of the current and emerging economy, including the use of technology, so that they will be career-ready and have the resources to succeed in this new labor market. Rehabilitation counselors must also be prepared to meet employer demands and better use labor market information in the job placement process. Training programs that prepare rehabilitation counselors to address these demands are needed.

The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services proposes a priority to fund programs leading to a master's degree in rehabilitation counseling. The goal of this priority is to increase the skills of rehabilitation counseling students so that upon successful completion they are prepared to effectively meet the needs and demands of consumers with disabilities and employers.

Under this priority, applicants must:

(a) Provide data on the current and projected employment needs and personnel shortages in State VR agencies and other related agencies as defined in 34 CFR 386.4 in their local area, region, and State, and describe how the proposed program will address those employment needs and personnel shortages.

(b) Describe how the rehabilitation counseling program will prepare rehabilitation counselors with the skills and knowledge that will help ensure that the individuals with disabilities that they serve can meet current demands and emerging trends in the labor market, including how:

(1) The curriculum aligns with evidence-based and competency-based practices in the field of rehabilitation counseling;

(2) The curriculum prepares students to meet all applicable certification standards;

(3) The curriculum addresses new or emerging consumer needs or trends at the national, State, and regional levels;

(4) The curriculum teaches students to address the needs of individuals with a range of disabilities and individuals with disabilities who are from diverse cultural backgrounds;

(5) The curriculum will train students to assess the assistive technology needs of consumers, identify the most appropriate assistive technology services and devices for assisting the consumer to obtain and retain employment, and train consumers to use such technology;

(6) The curriculum will teach students to identify employer needs in their State and local areas and to work with employers effectively in today's economy; and

(7) The latest technology is incorporated into the methods of instruction (e.g., the use of distance education to reach students who live far from the university and the use of technology to acquire labor market information).

(c) Describe their methods to:

(1) Recruit highly capable prospective students who have the potential to successfully complete the academic program, all required practicum and internship experiences, and the required service obligation;

(2) Educate potential students about the terms and conditions of the service obligation under 34 CFR 386.4, 386.34, and 386.40 through 386.43 so that they will be fully informed before accepting a scholarship;

(3) Maintain a system that ensures that students sign a payback agreement and an exit form when they exit the program, regardless of whether they drop out, are removed, or successfully complete the program;

(4) Provide academic support and counseling to students throughout the course of the academic program to ensure successful completion;

(5) Ensure that all students complete an internship in a State VR agency as a requirement for program completion;

(6) Provide career counseling, including informing students of professional contacts and networks, job leads, and other necessary resources and information to support students in successfully obtaining and retaining qualifying employment;

(7) Maintain regular contact with students upon successful program completion, (e.g., matching students with mentors in the field), to ensure that they have support during their search for qualifying employment as well as support during the initial months of their employment;

(8) Maintain regular communication with students after program exit to ensure that student contact information is up-to-date and that documentation of employment is accurate and meets the regulatory requirements for qualifying employment; and

(9) Maintain accurate information on, while safeguarding the privacy of, current and former students from the time they are enrolled in the program until they successfully meet their service obligation.

(d) Describe a plan for developing and maintaining partnerships with State VR Agencies and community-based rehabilitation service providers that includes:

(1) Coordination between the grantee and the State VR agencies and community-based rehabilitation service providers that will promote qualifying employment opportunities for students and formalized on-boarding and induction experiences for new hires;

(2) Formal opportunities for students to obtain work experiences through internships, practicum agreements, job shadowing, and mentoring opportunities; and

(3) A mechanism for ensuring that there is an assessment developed by the supervisor at the work site that details the student's strengths and areas for improvement that must be addressed, and that whenever possible, the results of this assessment are provided to the institution to ensure that future students receive all necessary preparation and training prior to program completion.

(e) Describe how students will be evaluated throughout the entire program to ensure that they are proficient in meeting the needs and demands of today's consumers and employers, including the steps that will be taken to provide assistance to a student who is not meeting academic standards or who is performing poorly in a practicum or internship setting.

(f) Describe how the program will be evaluated, including the effect the program has over a period of time on filling vacancies in the State VR agency with qualified counselors capable of providing quality services to consumers; how input from State VR agencies and community-based rehabilitation service providers will be included in the evaluation; and how the data and results from the evaluation will be used to make necessary adjustments and improvements to the program.

When inviting applications we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:

Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).

Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).

Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

We will announce the final priority in a notice in the Federal Register. We will determine the final priority after considering responses to this notice and other information available to the Department. This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);

(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.

This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;

(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);

(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and

(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.

Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”

We are issuing this proposed priority only on a reasoned determination that its benefits would justify its costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.

We also have determined that this regulatory action would not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.

The benefits of the Rehabilitation Long-Term Training program have been well established over the years through the successful completion of similar projects. This proposed priority would promote rehabilitation counseling programs that will better prepare students to assist individuals to achieve employment in today's challenging economy.

Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR Part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.

This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.

Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

Regulatory history: 77 FR 23176 (April 18, 2012).

This is the second in a series of orders addressing the need for more timely completion of nature of service proceedings. The Commission's initial order was issued as an advance notice of proposed rulemaking and solicited comments on whether changes to existing procedures and regulations are warranted and, if so, what those changes should be.1 In that same order, the Commission invited interested persons to comment on other relevant subjects. Id. at 2. Comments were filed by eight parties.2

In this order, the Commission proposes to amend 39 CFR Part 3001, subpart D, which sets forth new procedures for all nature of service proceedings. Under the proposed procedures, nature of service proceedings would be completed within 90 days of the date on which the Postal Service files its request under 39 U.S.C. 3661 for an advisory opinion. Comments are due 45 days after publication in the Federal Register. Reply comments are due 75 days after publication in the Federal Register.

Nature of service proceedings (N-Cases) involve Commission consideration of proposals by the Postal Service for “a change in the nature of postal services which will generally affect service on a nationwide, or substantially nationwide basis . . . .” 39 U.S.C. 3661(b). At the conclusion of each N-Case, the Commission must issue an advisory opinion which “conforms to the policies established under [title 39 of the United States Code].” 39 U.S.C. 3661(c). The first N-Case advisory opinion was issued in 1976.3 Over the intervening 30 years, four other N-Cases were initiated.4 Since 2006, five N-Cases have been docketed.5

The increasing frequency of N-Cases has been accompanied by an increase in their complexity which, in turn, has increased their length. Of the five N-Cases filed since 2006, three of those cases took 8 months or more to complete. See “Survey of N-Cases” attached to APWU Reply Comments. The longest of those cases (Docket No. N2010-1) took nearly 1 year to complete. Id. In its comments in this proceeding and elsewhere, the Postal Service has asserted that its extremely challenging financial situation requires prompter resolution of N-Cases. E.g., Postal Service Comments at 3. According to the Postal Service, the value and relevance of advice provided by the Commission in its advisory opinions depend upon timely receipt of that advice. Id. Moreover, although not enacted, the Senate passed legislation in the last Congress that would have required the Commission to complete N-Cases within 90 days of filing.6

A number of stakeholders, such as commercial mailers and postal employee organizations, have responded to the Postal Service's request for the expedition of N-Cases by pointing to legal requirements, as well as practical considerations, which, they assert, weigh against the imposition of a rigid timeframe for the completion of N-Cases. Valpak Comments at 9-11. They claim that the 90-day time limit proposed by the Postal Service is just such a rigid and unrealistic time frame. Id.

The Commission's legal authority to issue advisory opinions is set forth in 39 U.S.C. 3661(c). That subsection provides that:

The Commission's procedural rules implementing the requirements of section 3661 are set forth in 39 CFR part 3001, subpart D. Procedural rules of general applicability in 39 CFR part 3001, subpart A also apply.

The prohibition on the issuance of an advisory opinion “until an opportunity for hearing on the record under sections 556 and 557 of title 5 has been accorded” has historically been interpreted by the Commission to require formal, trial-type proceedings.7 Notwithstanding this interpretation, section 3661 does not prohibit the Postal Service from implementing proposed changes in postal services prior to the conclusion of Commission proceedings. Nor does section 3661 prohibit the Postal Service from implementing proposed changes in postal services found by the Commission in its advisory opinion to be inappropriate or unwise. In other words, advisory opinions issued under section 3661 are advisory in nature.

Commission rules under 39 CFR 3001.72 require the Postal Service to file its formal request for an advisory opinion not less than 90 days in advance of the date on which the Postal Service proposes to make effective the change in the nature of postal services involved. As noted, however, three of the last five N-Case decisions since 2006, took 8 months or longer to complete.

C. The Postal Service believes that the Commission's goal should be to ensure N-Case decisions are issued within 90 days. Postal Service Comments at 3. In the Postal Service's view, the most effective way to improve N-Case efficiency would be to enact legislation, such as S. 1789, which amends or replaces section 3661. Id. at 6. In that regard, Senator Carper cites section 208 of S. 1789 as a guide to Commission action. Carper Comments at 2.

In the absence of legislative changes, the Postal Service urges the Commission to adopt a number of changes that it claims would streamline N-Cases. Postal Service Comments at 2-29. The Postal Service's principal recommendation is for the Commission to “adopt a cap on the length of N-Cases that applies to all such cases . . . and . . . [to] adopt a multi-track approach to proceedings, with definite, shorter timeframes based on the complexity of the case . . . .” Id. at 5; see generally id. at 5-11. Within this framework, the Postal Service offers alternatives for reforming discovery processes in N-Cases. Id. at 12-20. These alternatives include Commission-led discovery, as opposed to participant-led discovery; limits on the number of interrogatories; and clearer and stricter boundaries for relevance that would restrict the scope and number of discovery requests. Id. It also offers other suggestions independent of its main proposal for improving N-Case processing. Id. at 20-29.

To support its regulatory alternatives to legislative action, the Postal Service relies upon Citizens Awareness Network v. U.S., 391 F.3d 338 (1st Cir. 2004) in asserting that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) “provides agencies with broad discretion to fashion procedures that make the hearing process more efficient.” Id. at 4 (footnote omitted). The Citizens Awareness decision was cited by the Commission as an example of judicial recognition of the authority of regulatory agencies “to place limits on the use of formal litigation procedures in certain types of cases . . . .” ANOPR at 6. The Commission encouraged commenters to address what form any new procedures might take, and what procedural safeguards must be preserved to assure that meaningful public participation and Commission decisions are helpful to the Postal Service's decision making process as required by law. Id. at 7.

Several commenters oppose the Postal Service's principal recommendation regarding time limits on N-Cases. See, e.g., Valpak Comments at 9-11; APWU Reply Comments at 6-9. They base their opposition, in part, on the language of section 3661 that requires “a hearing on the record under sections 556 and 557 [of the APA].” See Valpak Comments at 2. They argue further that the 90-day limit on N-Cases proposed by the Postal Service is both impossible and inconsistent with procedural due process. See id. at 9-11. They also take issue with the Commission's citation to the Citizens Awareness decision, asserting, for example, that “Citizens Awareness is not, and likely will never be, controlling authority over the Commission's rules” and is currently “merely persuasive authority for the Commission's formulation of new rules.” Id. at 13 n.17; see also APWU Reply Comments at 2-5.

The Public Representative believes that some changes in N-Case rules are warranted, but that the nature of those changes depends upon what “a hearing on the record under APA sections 556 and 557” requires. Public Representative Comments at 11. Although the Public Representative does not believe the Citizens Awareness decision supports major departures from current N-Case practice, she does not interpret that decision as precluding the exploration of ways to expedite N-Cases. Id. at 2. The Public Representative asserts that N-Case procedures must assure meaningful public participation and must foster the development of a sound record that permits the Commission to provide sound expert advice to the Postal Service in a timely manner. Id. at 7.

The ANOPR cited Citizens Awareness as support for “the general proposition that agencies have flexibility to tailor their procedures to make hearing processes more efficient.” ANOPR at 7. That general proposition is well settled. See Am. Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. United States, 627 F.2d 1313, 1321 (D.C. Cir. 1980) cited by the Court in Citizens Awareness, 391 F.3d at 349. As also pointed out by the Court in Citizens Awareness, it is equally well settled that “[a]n agency's rules, once adopted, are not frozen in place . . . [and that] . . . [t]he opposite is true: an agency may alter its rules in light of its accumulated experience in administering them [citation omitted].” Id. at 351.

What appears to be of greatest concern to commenters who have attempted to distinguish the Citizens Awareness decision is their suspicion that the Commission intends to implement the particular regulatory changes at issue in Citizens Awareness, (such as the substitution of “open file discovery” for traditional forms of discovery), in N-Cases solely because these changes were approved by the Citizens Awareness Court for use in Nuclear Regulatory Commission proceedings. This suspicion is unfounded. As the Commission expressly stated in the ANOPR, “procedures differ from agency to agency and . . . changes in those procedures require careful consideration in the specific statutory and regulatory contexts presented.” ANOPR at 7. It is in the context of section 3661 and experience in adjudicating N-Cases that the procedures discussed below are being proposed.

Notwithstanding their objections to the Postal Service's main proposal, several commenters have suggested various procedural changes intended to accelerate the pace of N-Cases and expedite the issuance of advisory opinions. Among the proposed changes are: (1) A proposal to require pre-filing briefings by the Postal Service; (2) a proposal to tighten the timeframes for objecting to discovery requests and for moving to compel production of discovery materials; and (3) a proposal to accelerate access to non-public materials, e.g., APWU Comments at 2-3, 6, 6-7. NNA does not oppose shorter procedural schedules, provided they do not impose unrealistic litigation deadlines that place additional costs on interested parties. NNA Comments at 3. NNA does oppose the elimination of fact finding and a shorter administrative process that defeats the purpose of oversight and leads to less transparency. Id. These and other suggestions have been considered by the Commission in preparing the proposal that is the subject of this notice of proposed rulemaking.

Comments filed in response to the ANOPR suggest two significantly different approaches to reduce delays in the issuance of N-Case advisory opinions. On the one hand, the Postal Service proposes strict time deadlines on N-Case proceedings and offers suggested procedural changes that it believes would enable the Commission to meet those deadlines. It urges adoption of a “multi-track approach” that would distinguish between relatively simple N-Cases to be completed within 45 days, cases of intermediate complexity to be completed within 60 days, and all other N-Cases, which would be subject to a 90-day time limit.

In order to meet the applicable 45-day or 90-day deadline, fundamental changes would be made in the manner in which discovery and hearings would be conducted. For example, the traditional method of discovery on the Postal Service would be replaced by the method used in exigent rate cases conducted under 39 U.S.C. 3622(d)(1)(E) and 39 CFR part 3010, subpart E. Postal Service Comments at 12-16. This latter method permits participants to suggest lines of discovery to the Commission, but gives the Commission the ultimate authority to decide whether and, if so, which suggested discovery requests to use. Similarly, the Postal Service asserts that cross-examination at hearings either be eliminated entirely or more tightly controlled. Id. at 20-25. Other suggested procedural changes include a shortened period for intervention, id. at 27; the elimination of field hearings, id. at 25-27; and the elimination of multiple rounds of hearings, id. at 5.

A different approach is proposed by the commenters opposed to the Postal Service's multi-track approach. These commenters object to the establishment of time deadlines. APWU Reply Comments at 6-9; Valpak Comments at 9-11. Instead, they offer suggestions to improve and refine traditional procedures in order to reduce delays. For example, they suggest a more cooperative exchange of information prior to the filing by the Postal Service of its request for an advisory opinion. APWU Comments at 2-3. They also suggest limiting the number of discovery requests that can be made by limited participators, shortening the time periods for responding to motions and discovery requests, and improving procedures for gaining access to relevant non-public information in the possession of the Postal Service. Id. at 5-7.

Based upon its initial review of the ANOPR comments, the Commission tentatively concludes that the most effective way of assuring timely issuance of advisory opinions is to adopt a time deadline for N-Case completion. Since, however, the goal of N-Cases is not simply to issue prompt opinions, but to issue meaningful opinions that adequately address relevant issues, participants must be afforded an opportunity to discover facts and challenge the factual assertions of others that bear upon relevant issues.

The imposition of time deadlines on N-Cases without fatally impairing the ability of participants to develop an adequate factual record by means of discovery and cross-examination presents a number of challenges. Perhaps the greatest challenge is to provide for adequate discovery within a restricted time period. Another significant challenge is to ensure that participant cross-examination is adequate to explore relevant issues while not unnecessarily or unduly prolonging hearings.

Although the requirement for the Postal Service to file its formal request for an advisory opinion not less than 90 days in advance of the proposed effective date has been in effect since 1973, the current rules challenge the Commission's ability to issue timely advisory opinions within such 90-day period.

In this notice, the Commission proposes procedural changes intended to preserve adequate opportunities for discovery and cross-examination within a fixed time period of 90 days from the date of filing of the Postal Service's request until the issuance of an advisory opinion. The principal elements of the proposed N-Case format are:

Nature of service proceedings currently conducted under subpart D are subject to the Commission's generally applicable procedural rules in subpart A. 39 CFR 3001.71. In some cases, the proposed N-Case procedures require departures from the generally applicable subpart A procedures. Some of these departures are relatively easy to accommodate by language changes to subpart A rules. For example, the proposed revision to 39 CFR 3001.17 would add an additional element to the content requirements of Commission notices in N-Case proceedings; see also proposed changes to 39 CFR 3001.5(h).8

Other proposed changes to N-Case procedures would require more substantial changes to subpart A rules of practice. For example, significant changes would be required in the rules governing motions (39 CFR 3001.21), discovery (39 CFR 3001.25-3001.28), hearings (39 CFR 3001.30), and legal briefs (39 CFR 3001.34). To accommodate the more significant changes, the Commission proposes to exclude specific subpart A rules from use in N-Cases and, in their place, establish specific N-Case rules in subpart D to cover these subjects. In this manner, the Commission seeks to foster the continued use of subpart A rules of practice, while establishing more specialized procedures in subpart D that are needed to expedite N-Cases.

APWU suggests that the N-Case process could be shortened if the Postal Service briefed the Commission and interested parties in advance of its filing. APWU Comments at 2. It states that the Postal Service often knows the parameters of its formal proposal months before it files its request for an advisory opinion. APWU also observes that the first few weeks after an N-Case has been filed are often without much activity because parties are reviewing the materials and determining whether intervention is warranted. Id. APWU asserts that pre-filing briefings would allow parties to identify potential issues of concern in advance and find and contract with experts early. It would also allow the Postal Service to pre-empt discovery requests and/or discovery disputes by addressing issues of concern in its initial filing. Id. at 3.

In response, the Postal Service states that absent any actual limits on N-Case procedures, it is not a foregone conclusion that this head start would actually reduce the time spent on discovery and witness preparation. Postal Service Reply Comments at 12. It maintains that parties already have ample access to baseline information about Postal Service operations in the form of Annual Compliance Reports, Annual Compliance Determinations, Sarbanes-Oxley Act disclosures, and other periodic reports and claims that it often provides advance public notice of its plans to change the nature of postal services already. Id. at 13.

Expanding and formalizing the pre-filing process are critical components of expedited N-Case procedures. Participants will be able to voice their concerns at an earlier point in time, which the Commission expects will aid the Postal Service in development of its formal proposal. The information obtained prior to the initial filing will also expedite the review of the Postal Service's formal proposal when it is filed and therefore reduce the need for extensive discovery while still allowing for issuance of an informed advisory opinion. The Postal Service has affirmed that, on occasion, it has provided advance notice of its own volition. The Commission believes that making this practice routine will maximize its potential benefit.

The proposal to formalize pre-filing consultations is not intended to prevent the Postal Service from conducting private discussions with individual mailers or other interested persons. Such discussions with customers, suppliers, and others can, themselves, allow the Postal Service to obtain information useful in providing, and in considering changes to, postal services. The Commission's proposal is intended to ensure that all participants with a reasonably foreseeable interest in an N-Case have a fair opportunity to discuss proposed changes in the nature of postal services with the Postal Service before a request for an advisory opinion is filed. The discussions envisioned by the Commission would be informal and off the record.

As proposed, the new rules would require potential stakeholders be consulted and invited to comment on the Postal Service's proposal. The Postal Service would be required to notify the Commission that it was commencing pre-filing discussions. Upon receipt of such notice, the Commission shall issue a notice of pre-filing conference(s), which shall be published in the Federal Register, and appoint a Public Representative.

When filing a request for an advisory opinion, the Postal Service would be required to indicate that the required pre-filing conference(s) occurred. The Postal Service would also be required to specify the time and place of the conference(s) and provide a summary of discussions conducted at the conference(s). In addition, the Postal Service would be required to explain how it made a good faith effort to address criticisms and suggestions made by interested persons prior to the filing of the request. All other filing requirements previously imposed by 39 CFR 3001.72 will remain applicable, including the mandatory supporting data to be filed with the request. The discovery period would commence on the date of the filing.

As soon as is practicable after receipt of the Postal Service's formal request, the Commission will issue a notice and scheduling order. This order will set deadlines for initial and reply comments, and set a tentative schedule for the case including: (1) A deadline for notices of intervention; (2) the date(s) for the mandatory technical conference between the Postal Service, Commission staff, and interested parties; (3) the deadline for discovery on the Postal Service's direct case; (4) the deadline for responses to participant discovery on the Postal Service's case; (5) the deadline for participants to confirm their intent to file a rebuttal case; (6) the date for filing participant rebuttal cases, if any; (7) the date for filing motions for leave to file surrebuttal testimony and answers thereto; (8) the date for filing surrebuttal testimony, if any; (9) the date(s) for hearings on the Postal Service's direct case, rebuttal testimony, if any, and surrebuttal testimony, if any; (10) the date for filing initial briefs; (11) the date for filing reply briefs; and (12) a deadline for issuance of an advisory opinion, which is 90 days from the date of filing. These dates are subject to change for good cause only.

APWU asserts that incomplete or frequently revised proposals are a significant cause of delay in the process. APWU Comments at 3. If the Commission makes the determination that the Postal Service's formal proposal is incomplete, or if significant modifications are made while the case is in progress, deadlines for the case may be extended.

A pro forma schedule is attached to the regulations for illustrative purposes. Due dates would remain within the general range of the sample schedule, but would be adjusted to accommodate holidays and weekends. The new procedural schedule would eliminate several steps traditionally present in N-Cases, such as discovery on intervenor testimony and exhibits. The proposed schedule also reflects abbreviated motion deadlines, mandatory pre-filing discussions, and changes in traditional discovery procedures.

Under the current rules for N-Cases, participants must file interventions designating whether they wish to be full or limited participants in the proceeding. See 39 CFR 3001.20 and 3001.20a. APWU claims that “[t]his distinction as currently applied makes no difference as to the level of participation in discovery an intervenor is allowed to undertake.” Id. at 5. Therefore, it requests that the Commission consider revising the definitions of limited and full participants to better describe the type of participation in discovery allowed or required by each. Id.

In the interest of simplifying the process and standardizing the level of participation among all parties, the Commission proposes to eliminate the distinction between full and limited participants in an N-Case proceeding. This change is being made by excluding 39 CFR 3001.20a from subpart A rules applicable to N-Cases. See proposed section 3001.71. All formal intervenors shall be considered full participants and allowed equal opportunity to participate in discovery.

Under 39 CFR 3001.21 of the Commission's current rules of practice, answers to motions must be filed within 7 days. Shortening the time period for answers to motions may help reduce overall delay. The Commission is therefore proposing that the time permitted for answers to all motions, except those discussed below, be reduced from 7 days to 5 calendar days. See proposed 39 CFR 3001.75. This will allow the participants adequate opportunity to contest motions while also preserving a more expeditious pace of the proceeding.

Disputes frequently arise in N-Cases over the appropriateness of discovery requests directed at the Postal Service. In some cases, the Postal Service challenges the relevance of a request because it is alleged to go beyond the scope of the Postal Service's proposed changes in postal services. In other cases, the Postal Service opposes a discovery request because of the alleged burden it would impose. Under the Commission's current rules of practice, the process of resolving these disputes begins with a Postal Service objection to a discovery request and is followed by a participant's motion to compel and a Postal Service answer to the motion to compel.

The Commission is proposing to accelerate the resolution of such disputes by eliminating the antecedent requirement of a Postal Service objection to a discovery request before commencement of the motions' practice aimed at resolving the dispute. In lieu of an initial objection to a discovery request, the Postal Service would be required to file a motion to be excused from answering the request, within 3 days of the filing of the discovery request at issue. The proponent of the request would file an answer within 2 days, and the dispute would be resolved either by the Commission or the presiding officer. The shortened procedure, coupled with shortened filing deadlines for both the motion and answer, is designed to accelerate resolution of discovery requests.

Although the Postal Service has an obligation in all cases to provide complete and responsive answers to discovery requests, the Commission recognizes that in some cases, discovery responses could arguably be unresponsive to a request. In such cases, the participant seeking discovery could file a motion to compel a responsive answer under the new, expedited provisions governing the filing of motions.

Under the Commission's current rules of practice, motions to strike testimony must be filed at least 14 days before a witness's scheduled appearance. 39 CFR 3001.21(c). The Commission is proposing to shorten that period by requiring that motions to strike testimony be filed at least 3 calendar days before a witness's scheduled appearance, unless good cause is shown. Answers to motions to strike would also be reduced from the current 7 days to 2 calendar days.

(iv) Motions for Leave To File Surrebuttal Testimony

Proposed section 3001.91, discussed below, requires participants who wish to submit surrebuttal testimony to obtain prior leave from the Commission to file such testimony. In order to obtain leave to file, participants must file a motion under proposed subsection 3001.75(d). This new subsection would require that such motions be filed on or before the date specified in the procedural schedule established pursuant to proposed section 3001.80. The deadline for filing a motion for leave to file surrebuttal testimony will be 2 days after the filing of that rebuttal evidence which is to be addressed by the proposed surrebuttal. Answers to motions for leave to file surrebuttal testimony, if any, must be filed within 2 days.

The Postal Service asserts that “[l]engthy discovery periods contribute to the overall length of time to resolve N-Case proceedings, thereby postponing the issuance of an advisory opinion.” Postal Service Comments at 13. Other parties contend that the opportunity for robust discovery must be preserved. See APWU Comments at 4; NNA Comments at 2. The Commission's proposal seeks to eliminate delay in discovery while continuing to allow participants a reasonable amount of time to obtain the necessary information.

In seeking to reconcile these objectives, the Commission proposes changes to the manner in which relevant information is obtained by participants, including addition of a mandatory technical conference. In conjunction with pre-filing discussions, the mandatory conference would enable the participants to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the Postal Service's proposal at an earlier stage in the process.

As part of this general scheme of streamlined discovery to promote expedition, each participant would be limited to serving 25 interrogatories, which includes all initial and follow-up questions. This limit would not apply to requests for admission or to requests for production of documents or information. However, requests for production of documents and information would be limited in scope. Participants would only be required to furnish existing data in response to a request by another participant. They would not be obligated to respond to requests for data by providing data that would have to be created or projected from existing data. The Commission anticipates that the information obtained from pre-filing discussions and technical conference will obviate the need for an extensive number of interrogatories.

The Commission is also proposing changes in the procedures for more expeditious resolutions of discovery disputes. See Section II.D.3.d.ii., supra.

On the day(s) set forth in the scheduling order and for all days within the second and third week after the filing of its formal proposal (excluding weekends and legal holidays), the Postal Service must make witnesses available for a mandatory technical conference with Commission staff and interested participants. This conference will be conducted off the record for the purpose of clarifying various technical issues in the Postal Service's initial request and for identifying and requesting information that is relevant to evaluation of the Postal Service's proposed changes in the nature of postal services. Information obtained during the conference may also be used to seek additional information by means of formal discovery.

Under the new rules, participants also would be limited to filing a total of 25 interrogatories for the entire N-Case. An interrogatory with subparts that are logically and factually subsumed within and necessarily related to the primary question will be counted as one interrogatory. This limit on the number of interrogatories is part of a comprehensive scheme to streamline discovery that would be supplemented by pre-filing consultations and mandatory technical conferences, among others.

APWU recommends shortening the time for answering interrogatories from 14 days to 10 days, and that the time for objections to interrogatories be shortened from 10 days to 5 days. APWU Comments at 6. The Commission has tentatively determined that further shortening the time for answering interrogatories from 14 days to 7 calendar days would be appropriate given the expedited nature of the discovery period.

Disputes over interrogatories would be resolved on an expedited basis under the motion procedures contained in proposed § 3001.75. Under those procedures, the Postal Service could challenge interrogatories directly in whole or in part by filing a motion to be excused from answering within 3 calendar days of service. See proposed section 3001.75(b).

Requests for production of documents or information are appropriate for obtaining data actually in existence at the time of the request. Participants are not required to respond to requests for data by providing data that would have to be created or projected from existing data. The time period for responding to a request for production of documents would be shortened from 14 days to 7 calendar days.

As in the case of interrogatories, disputes over production requests would be resolved on an expedited basis under the motion procedures contained in proposed section 3001.75. Challenges to production requests could be made directly by the Postal Service's filing of a motion to be excused from answering within 5 calendar days of service. See section 3001.75(b).

As under existing Commission practice, any participant may serve upon any other participant a written request for the admission of any relevant, unprivileged facts, including the genuineness of any documents or exhibits to be presented at the hearing. Admissions are not considered interrogatories and therefore are not subject to the limit of 25 interrogatories. The time period for responding to a request for admission is shortened from 14 days to 7 calendar days.

As in the case of interrogatories and requests for production, disputes over requests for admissions would be resolved on an expedited basis under the motion procedures contained in proposed section 3001.75. Challenges to production requests could be made directly by the Postal Service's filing of a motion to be excused from answering. See proposed section 3001.75(b).

A motion to be excused from answering requests for admission would be due within 5 calendar days of service. Requests for admissions in response to which no motion to be excused from answering is filed would be deemed admitted. Answers to motions to be excused from answering would be due within 7 calendar days of the response or motion.

In order to ensure the timely issuance of advisory opinions, the scope of participant rebuttal cases must be limited to the proposal that is the subject of the Postal Service's advisory opinion request. Rebuttal cases that propose, or seek to address, alternatives to the Postal Service's proposal will no longer be permitted.

If participants wish to file rebuttal testimony, they must, by the date provided for in the procedural schedule, confirm this intent in writing with the Commission. No Commission leave will be required to file rebuttal testimony. Any rebuttal testimony filed by a participant is due approximately 5 days after the confirmation of intent to file a rebuttal case is filed.

If no participant files a notice of intent to submit a rebuttal case, hearings on the Postal Service's direct case shall commence approximately 5 days after the deadline for confirming an intent to submit rebuttal and the Commission may adjust such remaining procedural dates as it deems to be appropriate.

In some cases, the Postal Service or other participants may wish to file surrebuttal testimony. The filing of surrebuttal will only be permitted if the Commission first determines that exceptional circumstances warrant such filing. The scope of any surrebuttal must be limited to material issues relevant to the Postal Service's proposal and to the rebuttal testimony that is to be addressed by the proposed surrebuttal.

Motions for leave to file surrebuttal must be filed with the Commission by the date provided in the procedural schedule. Participants requesting to file surrebuttal evidence bear the burden of demonstrating the need for surrebuttal. The motion may only be granted if the Commission, in its discretion, determines that exceptional circumstances exist.

If a motion for leave to file surrebuttal is granted, the moving participant must file its proposed surrebuttal by the date previously established in the procedural schedule.

In the event no motion for leave to file surrebuttal is filed, hearings on the Postal Service's request and rebuttal testimony, if any, will commence approximately 5 days after the deadline for requesting leave to file surrebuttal and the Commission may adjust such remaining procedural dates as it deems appropriate.

If one or more motions for leave to submit surrebuttal are filed, hearings shall commence approximately 5 days after the date surrebuttal would have otherwise been due under the previously established procedural schedule.

The rule currently governing hearings in N-Cases is rule 30 of the Commission's rules of practice. See 39 CFR 3001.30. A new rule applicable to hearings in N-Cases is being adopted which makes modifications in the N-Case hearing process. Under the new procedure, hearings will be held continuously and sequentially, as follows: (1) hearings on the Postal Service's case-in-chief; (2) hearings on participant rebuttal testimony, if any; and (3) hearings on surrebuttal testimony, if any.

The commencement date of hearings will depend upon whether rebuttal cases are filed and upon whether any participant requests leave to file a surrebuttal case. See, infra, proposed Appendix A to Part 3001, subpart D, Pro Forma N-Case Procedural Schedule, lines 8-13. For example, if, in particular cases, no participant wishes to file rebuttal or surrebuttal testimony (or if leave to file surrebuttal testimony is denied), hearings and adjustments in the procedural schedule may be made to accelerate the filing of briefs.

Hearings will be expedited by limiting cross-examination to material issues relevant to the Postal Service's proposal. Cross-examination that seeks to explore alternative proposals will not be permitted. Such proposals will, if appropriate, be considered in special studies or new public inquiry proceedings. See proposed rule 3001.72.

The briefing process in N-Cases will be streamlined by the adoption of strict page limits and an accelerated briefing schedule. The length of initial and reply briefs shall be limited to 14,000 words and 7,000 words, respectively. Initial briefs shall be filed approximately 7 days following the conclusion of hearings. Reply briefs shall be filed 7 days thereafter.

APWU claims that the current process required for intervenors to access non-public information is burdensome and causes unnecessary delays. It advocates a simplified approach for those parties who do not have a competitive relationship with the Postal Service. APWU Comments at 7. The Postal Service states that it is not evident that the Commission's procedures for protecting sensitive information actually contribute to the protracted schedules of N-Cases, but that it “would not be averse to further exploration, in an appropriate venue, of ways in which these procedures could be made more efficient.” Postal Service Reply Comments at 15-16.

In light of the shortened discovery period, the Commission agrees that an expeditious process is needed for making non-public information in nature of service proceedings available more promptly to qualified representatives of participants. However, the implications of APWU's proposals could extend beyond the boundaries of N-Cases and are therefore more properly the subject of review with the benefit of comments from a broader spectrum of interested persons.

The Commission notes that section 3007.40 of its regulations, 39 CFR 3007.40, provides mechanisms for expediting access to information designated as non-public by the Postal Service. In the absence of a Postal Service objection, access to non-public material can be obtained from the Commission within a few days of the request for access. See 39 CFR 3007.40(d)(2). For example, if a person requesting access reaches agreement with the Postal Service by the time it files its request with the Commission, that person can so represent in its filing. In such a case, the Commission would be prepared promptly to issue an order granting access.

Proposed section 3001.72 provides that the Commission shall issue its advisory opinion no later than 90 days after the filing of the Postal Service's request unless the Commission makes a determination of good cause for extending the 90-day deadline. A determination of whether good cause exists would, of necessity, be case specific. The Commission is, however, committed to issuing advisory opinions within 90 days of filing.

As an additional means of expediting N-Cases, the Commission proposes to follow a policy of limiting the scope of its advisory opinion to the changes in postal services proposed by the Postal Service. While alternative changes might be noted, they would not be evaluated. If, in any proceeding, alternatives or related issues of significant importance arise, the Commission may, in its discretion, undertake an evaluation of such alternative or issues by means of special studies, public inquiry proceedings, or other appropriate means.

Subpart D revisions. Part 3001, subpart D, of title 39, Code of Federal Regulations, which deals with rules applicable to requests for changes in the nature of postal services, is amended and establishes new procedural rules applicable to Postal Service requests for advisory opinions on proposed changes in the nature of postal services.

Section 3001.71 replaces current section 3001.71. New section 3001.71 makes the rules in subpart D applicable to requests by the Postal Service pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3661 for Commission advisory opinions on proposed changes in the nature of postal services.

Section 3001.72 is a new section that provides that, in the absence of a determination of good cause, advisory opinions in nature of service proceedings will be issued not later than 90 days following the filing of the Postal Service's request for an advisory opinion. Section 3001.72 also provides for Commission authorization of special studies of issues arising out of nature of service proceedings.

Section 3001.73 is a new section that provides for the use of calendar days in computing time periods under subpart D.

Section 3001.74 replaces section 3001.75. New section 3001.74 requires the Postal Service to serve copies of formal requests for advisory opinions on intervenors and the officer of the Commission designated to represent the interests of the general public.

Section 3001.75 is a new section that establishes shortened deadlines for the filing of motions and answers to motions in N-Cases. This section also establishes a procedure for filing motions to be excused from answering discovery requests and a procedure for requesting leave to file surrebuttal.

Section 3001.80 is a new section that describes the contents of the notice and scheduling order to be issued by the Commission after the Postal Service files a request for an advisory opinion on proposed changes in the nature of postal services.

Section 3001.81 is a new section containing pre-filing requirements. New section 3001.81 requires the Postal Service to engage in discussions with potentially affected participants before filing a request for an advisory opinion on proposed changes in the nature of postal services.

Section 3001.82 replaces section 3001.72. New section 3001.82 establishes requirements for the filing of Postal Service requests for advisory opinions in N-Cases.

Section 3001.83 replaces section 3001.74. New section 3001.83 establishes requirements for the contents of requests for advisory opinions.

Section 3001.84 replaces section 3001.73. New section 3001.84 establishes requirements for the filing by the Postal Service of prepared direct testimony with requests for advisory opinions.

Sections 3001.85 through 3001.89 are new sections that establish expedited discovery procedures in N-Cases.

Section 3001.90 is a new section governing the filing of participant rebuttal cases that respond to the Postal Service's direct case.

Section 3001.91 is a new section governing the filing of surrebuttal testimony that responds to rebuttal testimony filed under section 3001.90.

Section 3001.92 is a new section that prescribes procedures for hearings on the record in nature of service proceedings that differ from the procedures prescribed in section 3001.30.

Section 3001.93 is a new section that establishes page limitations for initial and reply briefs and provides for expedited briefing in nature of service proceedings.

Appendix A to Part 3001, subpart D, Pro Forma N-Case Procedural Schedule is a new appendix to N-Case rules that provides a template for use in establishing procedural schedules in individual cases.

Conforming revisions to other subparts. Section 3001.3 is amended to exclude specific subpart A rules of practice from use in N-Cases.

Section 3001.5(h) is amended to eliminate the distinction between participants and limited participators in N-Cases.

Section 3001.15 is amended to reflect that the computation of time periods of 5 days or less in proceedings conducted under subpart D includes Saturdays, Sundays, and federal holidays.

Section 3001.17 is amended to require the inclusion in notices of nature of service proceedings conducted under 39 CFR Part 3001, subpart D of the procedural schedule required by 39 CFR 3001.80.

Section 3001.20(a) is amended to preclude participation in N-Cases as a limited participator.

Section 3001.20(d) is amended to shorten the time period for filing oppositions to notices of intervention that are submitted in nature of service proceedings conducted under 39 CFR Part 3001, subpart D.

Section 3001.31(e) is amended to shorten the period for designating evidence received in other Commission proceedings for entry into the N-Case record. The amended subsection also shortens the period for objecting to designations.

Section 3001.31(k)(4) is amended to shorten the time periods for requesting entry into an N-Case record of evidence received in another Commission proceeding and for expending responses to requests made pursuant to this section.

The Commission seeks comments on its proposed rules applicable to requests by the Postal Service for changes in the nature of postal services.9

It is ordered:

1. Comments on proposed part 3001, subpart D of title 39, Code of Federal Regulations, are due 45 days after publication in the Federal Register.

2. Reply comments are due 75 days after publication in the Federal Register.

3. Patricia A. Gallagher, previously designated to represent the interests of the general public in this docket, will continue in that capacity.

4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission proposes to amend chapter III of title 39 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

For additional information, please see the immediate final rule published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register.

Section 464z-3 (42 U.S.C. 285t) of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act authorizes the Director of the NIMHD to carry out a program to facilitate minority health disparities research and other health disparities research by providing research endowments to eligible centers of excellence under sections 736 and 464z-4 of the PHS Act. The program is called the NIMHD Research Endowment Program (Endowment Program). The objective of the Endowment Program is to build research and training capacity and infrastructure at eligible section 736 health professions schools (42 U.S.C. 293) and section 464z-4 biomedical and behavioral research institutions (42 U.S.C. 285t-1) to facilitate minority health and other health disparities research to close the disparity gap in the burden of illness and death experienced by racial and ethnic minority Americans and other health disparity populations. Endowment Program activities may include strengthening the research infrastructure through the renovation of facilities, purchasing of state-of-the-art instruments and equipment, and enhancing information technology; enhancing the academic environment by recruiting a diverse faculty and creating relevant courses in such topics as research methodology and health disparities as additions to the existing curriculum; enhancing recruitment of individuals currently underrepresented in the biomedical, clinical, behavioral, and social sciences; or other relevant activities.

Section 464z-4 of the PHS Act authorizes the NIMHD Director to make awards to designated biomedical and behavioral research institutions, alone or as a participant in a consortium, that meet certain criteria for the purpose of assisting the institutions in supporting programs of excellence in training for members of health disparity populations or other health disparity populations. This program is called the NIMHD Center of Excellence for Research and Training. Section 464z-4(f) of the PHS Act permits the NIMHD Director to expend a portion of such an award for research endowment.

To be eligible to apply for the Endowment Program, Centers of Excellence (funded under section 736 or section 464z-4 of the PHS Act) must have an institutional endowment that is equal to or less than 50 percent of the national median of endowment funds at institutions that conduct similar biomedical research and training of health professionals. Endowment Program applications filed by institutions meeting eligibility requirements undergo peer review by outside experts to evaluate the scientific and technical merit of the proposed activities and the adequacy of the endowment fund management plan.

Reviewers use the criteria of significance, investigators, innovation, approach, and environment to determine the overall impact of the application. After receiving an Endowment Program award, a grantee must provide documentation to the NIMHD over a 20-year period regarding endowment fund activity, including investments, income, and expenditures for activities consistent with its strategic plan.

With this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), the NIH is announcing its proposed regulations governing endowments and inviting the public to comment on this proposal.

This NPRM specifies the endowment research grants or endowment portion of an award to which the proposed regulations apply (section 52i.1), the definitions (section 52i.2), who is eligible (section 52i.3) and how to apply for a grant under the program (section 52i.5), and under what conditions an eligible institution that is a recipient may transfer to a foundation a research endowment grant (section 52i.4). Additionally, the NPRM specifies how endowment grant applications will be evaluated (section 52i.6), what is the nature of the grants (52i.7), how much endowment fund income a grantee may withdraw and for what purpose (sections 52i.9 and 52i.10), what a grantee must record and report (section 52i.11), and when and for what purposes a grantee may spend the endowment fund corpus (section 52i.8). This NPRM also specifies what happens if a grantee fails to administer the research endowment grant in accordance with applicable regulations (section 52i.12), what other HHS policies and regulations apply (section 52i.13), and what additional conditions the NIMHD Director may impose when, in his judgment, the conditions are necessary (section 52i.14).

The following is provided as public information.

We have examined the impacts of the this rule as required by Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review (September 30, 1993); Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Review (January 18, 2011); the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612); the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4); and Executive Order 13132, Federalism (August 4, 1999).

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). A RIA must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in one year). Based on our analysis, we believe that the proposed rulemaking does not constitute an economically significant regulatory action. Additionally, if a regulatory action is deemed to fall within the scope of the definition of the term “significant regulatory action” contained in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, pre-publication review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is required. This proposed rule was reviewed under the criteria of Executive Order 12866 and was not deemed a “significant regulatory action.”

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health, and safety effects; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.

The proposed regulations will add transparency for potential applicants regarding who is eligible and how to apply for a grant under the program, how grant applications will be evaluated, and under what conditions an eligible institution that is a recipient may transfer to a foundation a research endowment grant. Additionally, the NPRM specifies the nature of the grants, how much endowment fund income a grantee may withdraw and for what purpose, what a grantee must record and report, and when and for what purposes a grantee may spend the endowment fund corpus.

This NPRM also enhances compliance and effective fiduciary responsibilities for the federal government. It specifies what happens if a grantee fails to administer the research endowment grant in accordance with applicable regulations, what other HHS policies and regulations apply, and additional conditions the NIMHD Director may impose when, in his judgment, the conditions are necessary. The Director may, with respect to any grant award, impose additional conditions prior to, or at the time of, any award when in the Director's judgment the conditions are necessary to ensure the carrying out of the purposes of the award, the interests of the public health, or the conservation of grant funds.

Based on the provisions of the PHS Act, approximately twelve Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) are eligible for the NIMHD Research Endowment Program. Costs for participation can be subdivided into those associated with the application process and those required for the necessary recordkeeping. The application process includes a competitive submission, as well as noncompetitive progress report for those institutions awarded funds under the NIMHD Research Endowment Program for subsequent years within the project period. Based on estimates provided in the PHS 424 instructions, an average application should require approximately 22 hours to complete and 15 hours for a subsequent progress report, according to the PHS 2590 instructions. The contribution of various professional disciplines such as biomedical researchers, contract/grants specialists, and technical staff to the reporting and recordkeeping requirements varies. Cost estimates are based on a blended analysis of institutional salary structure and prevailing market conditions for certain categories of personnel. In addition, fiscal year 2012 NIH salary limitations were included in the derivation of cost estimates, where applicable.

The unique and complex nature of the NIMHD Research Endowment Program with regard to the management of endowment funds, restrictive nature of expenditures, and strict reporting provides a challenge to the necessary federal oversight. The proposed draft rule provides the guidelines for the creation of an operation structure of the institutional program. The implementation of the draft rule would provide clarity to eligible and participating institutions with regard to expectations as a grantee under the program, as well as enhance the ability of the federal government to ensure the grantees are in compliance with all the applicable provisions of the statute.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires agencies to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of the rule on small entities. For the purposes of this analysis, small entities include small business concerns as defined by the Small Business Administration, usually businesses with fewer than 500 employees. Eligibility requirements of the Research Endowment program, as codified in Public Law 111-148, limits the universe of potential applicants to approximately twelve IHEs. Utilizing sources of information such as local business bureaus, workforce statistics, and institution Web sites, a reasonable determination was made as to the approximate number of employees at eligible institutions. The range estimates are from 175-550 for the smallest institution to 3,976 for the largest. Consequently, less than 10 percent of these eligible IHEs have fewer than 500 employees. Accordingly, the Secretary certifies than any final rule resulting from this proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a significant number of small entities.

Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires that agencies prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing “any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation [with base year of 1995]) in any 1 year.” The current inflation-adjusted statutory threshold is approximately $139 million based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator. The Secretary certifies that this rule does not mandate any spending by state, local or tribal government in the aggregate or by the private sector. Participation in the NIMHD Research Endowment Program is voluntary and not mandated.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism, requires federal agencies to consult with state and local government officials in the development of regulatory policies with federalism implications. The Secretary reviewed the proposed rule as required under the Executive Order and determined that it does not have federalism implications. The Secretary certifies that the proposed rule will not have an effect on the states or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

This proposed rule contains requirements that are subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as amended (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). Sections 52i.3(b)(2), 52i.4(a), 52i.4(c), 52i.5(a), 52i.9, 52i.11(b), and 52i.11(d) contain reporting and information collection requirements that are subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Sections 52i.10, 52i.11(a)(1), 52i.11(a)(2), 52i.11(a)(3), 52i.11(a)(4), and 52i.11(b) contain recordkeeping requirements that are subject to OMB review under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The title, description, and respondent description of the information collection and recordkeeping requirements contained in this proposed rule have been submitted to OMB for review. Other organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the information collection and recordkeeping requirements, including the burden estimates provided, should send their comments to: (1) Seleda Perryman, Project Clearance Officer, National Institutes of Health, Rockledge Center 1, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Room 3509, Bethesda, MD 29817, telephone 301-594-7949 (not a toll-free number); and (2) the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, OIRA_submission@omb.eop or by fax to 202-395-6974, and mark “Attention: Desk Officer for the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services.” After we obtain OMB approval, we will publish the OMB control number in the Federal Register.

Title: National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities Research Endowments.

Description: The NIMHD Research Endowment Program builds research capacity and research infrastructure in order to facilitate minority health research and research regarding other health disparity populations at eligible institutions under sections 736 and 464z-4 of the PHS Act.

Respondent Description: Institutions currently funded under Section 736 or Section 464z-4 of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act).

The Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance-numbered program applicable to this rule is: 93.307—Minority Health and Health Disparities Research

For reasons described in the preamble, it is proposed to amend title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations by adding part 52i to read as follows.

Regulations Schedule for 2013

On April 9, 2013, we published in the Federal Register (78 FR 21200) a proposal to amend 50 CFR part 20. The proposal provided a background and overview of the migratory bird hunting regulations process, and addressed the establishment of seasons, limits, and other regulations for hunting migratory game birds under §§ 20.101 through 20.107, 20.109, and 20.110 of subpart K. This document is the second in a series of proposed, supplemental, and final rules for migratory game bird hunting regulations. We will publish proposed early-season frameworks in early July and late-season frameworks in early August. We will publish final regulatory frameworks for early seasons on or about August 16, 2013, and for late seasons on or about September 14, 2013.

The Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee (SRC) will meet June 19-20, 2013, to review information on the current status of migratory shore and upland game birds and develop 2013-14 migratory game bird regulations recommendations for these species, plus regulations for migratory game birds in Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The Committee will also develop regulations recommendations for September waterfowl seasons in designated States, special sea duck seasons in the Atlantic Flyway, and extended falconry seasons. In addition, the Committee will review and discuss preliminary information on the status of waterfowl.

At the July 31-August 1, 2013, meetings, the Committee will review information on the current status of waterfowl and develop 2013-14 migratory game bird regulations recommendations for regular waterfowl seasons and other species and seasons not previously discussed at the early-season meetings. In addition, the Committee will develop recommendations for the 2014 spring/summer migratory bird subsistence season in Alaska.

In accordance with Departmental policy, these meetings are open to public observation. You may submit written comments to the Service on the matters discussed.

Service representatives will be present at the individual meetings of the four Flyway Councils this July. Although agendas are not yet available, these meetings usually commence at 8 a.m. on the days indicated.

• Atlantic Flyway Council: July 18-19, Mystic Hilton, Mystic, CT.

• Mississippi Flyway Council: July 25-26, Biddle Hotel and Conference Center, Bloomington, IN.

• Central Flyway Council: July 25-26, The Lodge at Sierra Blanca, Ruidoso, NM.

• Pacific Flyway Council: July 26, Siena Hotel, Reno, NV.

This supplemental rulemaking describes Flyway Council recommended changes based on the preliminary proposals published in the April 9, 2013, Federal Register. We have included only those recommendations requiring either new proposals or substantial modification of the preliminary proposals and do not include recommendations that simply support or oppose preliminary proposals and provide no recommended alternatives. Our responses to some Flyway Council recommendations, but not others, are merely a clarification aid to the reader on the overall regulatory process, not a definitive response to the issue. We will publish responses to all proposals and written comments when we develop final frameworks.

We seek additional information and comments on the recommendations in this supplemental proposed rule. New proposals and modifications to previously described proposals are discussed below. Wherever possible, they are discussed under headings corresponding to the numbered items identified in the April 9 proposed rule. Only those categories requiring your attention or for which we received Flyway Council recommendations are discussed below.

Duck harvest management categories are: (A) General Harvest Strategy; (B) Regulatory Alternatives, including specification of framework dates, season length, and bag limits; (C) Zones and Split Seasons; and (D) Special Seasons/Species Management.

Council Recommendations: The Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that regulations changes be restricted to one step per year, both when restricting as well as liberalizing hunting regulations.

Service Response: As we stated in the April 9 Federal Register, the final AHM protocol for the 2013-14 season will be detailed in the early-season proposed rule, which will be published in mid-July.

Council Recommendations: The Mississippi and Central Flyway Councils recommended that regulatory alternatives for duck hunting seasons remain the same as those used in 2012-13.

Service Response: As we stated in the April 9 Federal Register, the final regulatory alternatives for the 2013-14 season will be detailed in the early-season proposed rule, which will be published in mid-July.

Council Recommendations: The Atlantic, Mississippi, and Central Flyway Councils recommended that the daily bag limit be increased from 4 to 6 teal in the aggregate during the Special September teal season. The Atlantic Flyway Council also recommended that we allow Maryland to adjust existing shooting hours during the Special September teal season from sunrise to one-half hour before sunrise on an experimental basis during 2013-15 seasons.

Council Recommendations: The Central Flyway Council recommended modifying the “moderate” regulatory alternative for the States of the Central Flyway from a 74-day season with a 2-bird daily bag limit to a 74-day season with a 3-bird daily bag limit. The Council recommended no changes to the “restrictive” and “liberal” alternative.

Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended that the Service amend the annual waterfowl hunting regulations at 50 CFR 20.105 to allow the shooting of crippled waterfowl from a motorboat under power in New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia in those areas described, delineated, and designated in their respective hunting regulations as special sea duck hunting areas.

Council Recommendations: The Mississippi Flyway Council recommended increasing the daily bag limit in Minnesota from 5 geese to 10 geese during the special September season in certain areas of the State.

Council Recommendations: The Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that the framework opening date for all species of geese for the regular goose seasons in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan and Wisconsin be September 16, 2013, and in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan be September 11, 2013.

Council Recommendations: The Mississippi Flyway Council recommended implementation of a 3-year experimental 60-day sandhill crane season in Tennessee beginning in the 2013-14 season.

The Central Flyway Council recommended increasing the season length in North Dakota's eastern sandhill crane hunting zone (Area-2) from 37 to 58 days in length.

The Central and Pacific Flyway Councils recommend using the 2013 Rocky Mountain Population (RMP) sandhill crane harvest allocation of 771 birds as proposed in the allocation formula using the 3-year running average for 2010-12.

Council Recommendations: The Atlantic and Mississippi Flyway Councils recommended use of the “moderate” season framework for States within the Eastern Management Unit population of mourning doves resulting in a 70-day season and 15-bird daily bag limit. The daily bag limit could be composed of mourning doves and white-winged doves, singly or in combination.

The Mississippi and Central Flyway Councils recommend the use of the standard (or “moderate”) season package of a 15-bird daily bag limit and a 70-day season for the 2013-14 mourning dove season in the States within the Central Management Unit. They also recommended that the Special White-winged Dove Area be expanded to Interstate Highway 37 in the 2013-14 season.

The Pacific Flyway Council recommended use of the “moderate” season framework for States in the Western Management Unit (WMU) population of doves, which represents no change from last year's frameworks.

The Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyway Councils also recommended that the present interim mourning dove harvest strategy be replaced by a new national mourning dove harvest strategy for implementation beginning with the 2014-15 season. The new strategy uses a discrete logistic growth model based on information derived from the banding program, the Harvest Information Program, and the mourning dove parts collection survey to predict mourning dove population size in a Bayesian statistical framework. The method is similar to other migratory bird strategies already in place and performs better than several other modeling strategies that were evaluated by the National Mourning Dove Task Force. The strategy uses mourning dove population thresholds to determine a regulation package for mourning doves for each year.

Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended increasing the possession limits for sora and Virginia rails from 2 to 3 times the aggregate daily bag limit, consistent with the Council's proposed bag limits for all other migratory game birds during normal established hunting seasons.

The Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyway Councils recommended increasing the possession limit from 2 to 3 times the daily bag limit for doves.

The Pacific Flyway Councils recommended increasing the possession limit from 2 to 3 times the daily bag limit for band-tailed pigeons, special September Canada goose seasons, snipe, falconry, and Alaska seasons for brant, sandhill cranes, and geese (except dusky Canada geese).

The Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that the Service increase the possession limit from 2 times to 3 times the daily bag limit for all migratory game bird species and seasons except for Canada geese or other overabundant species for which no current possession limits are currently assigned (e.g., light geese), where there would continue to be no possession limits. The Council also recommended no change for those species that currently have permit hunts (e.g., cranes and swans). The Council recommends these changes be implemented beginning in the 2013-14 season. New and/or experimental seasons could have different possession limits if justified. The Council further recommended that possession limits not apply at one's personal permanent residence and specifically recommended language to modify 50 CFR 20.39 to do so.

Service Response: The issue of possession limits was first raised by the Flyway Councils in the summer of 2010. At that time, we stated that we were generally supportive of the Flyways' interest in increasing the possession limits for migratory game birds and appreciated the discussions to frame this important issue (75 FR 58250; September 23, 2010). We also stated that we believed there were many unanswered questions regarding how this interest could be fully articulated in a proposal that satisfies the harvest management community, while fostering the support of the law enforcement community and informing the general hunting public. Thus, we proposed the creation of a cross-agency Working Group, chaired by the Service, and comprised of staff from the Service's Migratory Bird Program, State Wildlife Agency representatives, and Federal and State law enforcement staff, to develop a recommendation that fully articulates a potential change in possession limits. This effort would include a discussion of the current status and use of possession limits, which populations and/or species/species groups should not be included in any proposed modification of possession limits, potential law enforcement issues, and a reasonable timeline for the implementation of any such proposed changes.

After discussions last year at the January SRC meeting, and March and July Flyway Council meetings, the Atlantic, Central, and Pacific Flyway Councils recommended that the Service increase the possession limit from 2 times to 3 times the daily bag limit for all migratory game bird species and seasons except for those species that currently have possession limits of less than 2 times the daily bag limit (e.g., some rail species), permit hunts (e.g., cranes and swans), and for overabundant species for which no current possession limits are assigned (e.g., light geese), beginning in the 2013-14 season (77 FR 58444; September 20, 2012). These recommendations from the Councils are one such outgrowth of the efforts started in 2010. With the new recommendation from the Mississippi Flyway Council and the additional input and recommendations from all four Flyway Councils from their March 2013 Council meetings, we plan to prepare a proposal for the SRC's consideration and discussion at the June 19-20 SRC meeting for the 2013-14 hunting seasons.

Additionally, as we discussed in the April 9 proposed rule (78 FR 21200), when our initial review of possession limits was instituted in 2010, we also realized that a review of possession limits could not be adequately conducted without expanding the initial review to include other possession-related regulations. In particular, it was our belief that any potential increase in the possession limits should be done in concert with a review and update of the wanton waste regulations in 50 CFR 20.25. We believed it prudent to review some of the long-standing sources of confusion (for both hunters and law enforcement) regarding wanton waste. A review of the current Federal wanton waste regulations, along with various State wanton waste regulations, has been recently completed, and we anticipate publishing a proposed rule this summer to revise 50 CFR 20.25.

Lastly, we recognize that there are other important issues surrounding possession that need to be reviewed, such as termination of possession (as recommended by the Mississippi Flyway Council). However, that issue is a much larger and more complex review than the wanton waste regulations and the possession limit regulations. We anticipate starting a review of termination of possession regulations upon completion of changes to the wanton waste and possession limits regulations.

The Department of the Interior's policy is, whenever practicable, to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. Accordingly, we invite interested persons to submit written comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the proposed regulations. Before promulgation of final migratory game bird hunting regulations, we will take into consideration all comments we receive. Such comments, and any additional information we receive, may lead to final regulations that differ from these proposals.

You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not accept comments sent by email or fax or to an address not listed in the ADDRESSES section. Finally, we will not consider hand-delivered comments that we do not receive, or mailed comments that are not postmarked, by the date specified in the DATES section.

We will post all comments in their entirety—including your personal identifying information—on http://www.regulations.gov. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Room 4107, 4501 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203.

For each series of proposed rulemakings, we will establish specific comment periods. We will consider, but possibly may not respond in detail to, each comment. As in the past, we will summarize all comments we receive during the comment period and respond to them after the closing date in any final rules.

Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is significant because it will have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy.

An economic analysis was prepared for the 2008-09 season. This analysis was based on data from the 2006 National Hunting and Fishing Survey. This analysis estimated consumer surplus for three alternatives for duck hunting (estimates for other species are not quantified due to lack of data). The alternatives are (1) Issue restrictive regulations allowing fewer days than those issued during the 2007-08 season, (2) Issue moderate regulations allowing more days than those in alternative 1, and (3) Issue liberal regulations identical to the regulations in the 2007-08 season. For the 2008-09 season, we chose alternative 3, with an estimated consumer surplus across all flyways of $205-$270 million. We also chose alternative 3 for the 2009-10, the 2010-11, the 2011-12, and the 2012-13 seasons. At this time, we are proposing no changes to the season frameworks for the 2013-14 season, and as such, we will again consider these three alternatives. However, final frameworks will be dependent on population status information available later this year.

Recently, new economic data from the 2011 National Hunting and Fishing Survey has become available. As such, we are currently updating our previous economic analysis and plan to have it available for public review and comment later this summer. Until such time as our new analysis is available, we will continue to make the 2008-09 analysis available at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/SpecialTopics/SpecialTopics.html#HuntingRegs or at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2013-0057.

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

Based on our most current data, we are affirming our required determinations made in the proposed rule; for descriptions of our actions to ensure compliance with the following statutes and Executive orders, see our April 9, 2013, proposed rule (78 FR 21200):

• National Environmental Policy Act;

• Endangered Species Act;

• Regulatory Flexibility Act;

• Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act;

• Paperwork Reduction Act;

• Unfunded Mandates Reform Act;

• Executive Orders 12630, 12988, 13175, 13132, and 13211.

The rules that eventually will be promulgated for the 2013-14 hunting season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 703-711, 16 U.S.C. 712, and 16 U.S.C. 742 a-j.