I. Background

Section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act added a new section 13 to the BHC Act (codified at 12 U.S.C. 1851) that generally prohibits banking entities from engaging in proprietary trading and from investing in, sponsoring, or having certain relationships with a hedge fund or private equity fund. These prohibitions are subject to a number of statutory exemptions, restrictions and definitions.

Section 13 of the BHC Act expressly authorizes the Board, OCC, FDIC, CFTC, and SEC to issue implementing regulations. Each Agency issued a common final rule implementing section 619 that becomes effective on April 1, 2014 (“Final Rule”). 1

A separate provision of the Dodd-Frank Act, section 171, generally provides that trust preferred and certain other securities issued by depository institution holding companies must be phased-out of such companies' calculation of regulatory capital for purposes of determining Tier 1 capital. However, section 171 further provides for the permanent grandfathering of debt and equity securities issued before May 19, 2010, by any depository institution holding company that had total consolidated assets of less than $15 billion as of December 31, 2009, or was a mutual holding company on May 19, 2010 (“community banking organizations”). These grandfathered capital-raising instruments in the form of trust preferred securities or subordinated debt securities (collectively referred to herein as “TruPS”) were issued by community banks frequently through securitization pools (“TruPS CDOs”) that were formed for the purpose of acquiring these TruPS.

Section 619 generally prohibits a banking entity from acquiring or retaining any ownership in, or acting as sponsor to, a hedge fund or private equity fund, which are defined under the statute to mean an issuer that would be an investment company, as defined in the Investment Company Act, but for section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of that Act, or “such similar funds” as the Agencies determine by rule. The Agencies have by separate rule implementing section 619, in relevant part, defined a hedge fund or private equity fund through the term “covered fund” to be any issuer that would be an investment company under the Investment Company Act but for section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of that Act, with certain exceptions and additions. 2 This definition generally includes pooled investment vehicles, such as many TruPS CDOs, that use 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) but do not qualify for another exclusion under the Investment Company Act or the Final Rule.

Section 171 of the Dodd-Frank Act requires, among other things, that the appropriate Federal banking agencies establish minimum leverage and risk-based capital requirements for insured depository institutions and depository institution holding companies that are not less than the generally applicable capital requirements that were in effect for insured depository institutions as of the date of enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act. 3 The focus of this section on ensuring that depository institutions and their holding companies maintain strong minimum capital levels is one of the key prudential provisions included in the Dodd-Frank Act. Importantly in the current context and as noted above, section 171 specifically permits any community banking organization to continue to rely for regulatory capital purposes on any debt or equity instruments issued before May 19, 2010. 4

A number of community banking organizations have recently expressed concern that the Final Rule conflicts with the Congressional determination under section 171(b)(4)(C) of the Dodd-Frank Act to grandfather TruPS issued as of May 19, 2010, by community banking organizations. 5 Many community banks and other market participants maintain that the issuance of TruPS using a pooled investment structure was the only practical way for community banking organizations to avail themselves of TruPS for regulatory capital purposes. Accordingly, the TruPS CDO structure was the tool that gave effect to the use of TruPS as a regulatory capital instrument prior to May 19, 2010 and was part of the status quo Congress preserved with the grandfathering provision of section 171. In order to avoid imposing restrictions that could adversely affect the TruPS CDO market in a manner that could undercut the grandfathering provisions that Congress provided in section 171, the Agencies believe that certain TruPS CDOs should be a permitted investment for all banking entities under section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act.

The Agencies have determined to act together to adopt an interim final rule. This new interim final rule permits a banking entity to retain an interest in, or to act as sponsor (including as trustee) of, an issuer that is backed by TruPS so long as (i) the issuer was established before May 19, 2010; (ii) the banking entity reasonably believes that the offering proceeds received by the issuer were invested primarily in Qualifying TruPS Collateral (as defined below); and (iii) the banking entity's interest in the vehicle was acquired on or before December 10, 2013 (unless acquired pursuant to a merger or acquisition). Under the interim final rule, a “Qualifying TruPS Collateral” is defined by reference to the standards in section 171(b)(4)(C) to mean any trust preferred security or subordinated debt instrument issued prior to May 19, 2010 by a depository institution holding company that, for any reporting period during the 12 months immediately preceding the issuance of such instrument, had total consolidated assets of less than $15,000,000,000 or issued prior to May 19, 2010 by a mutual holding company. The Agencies have required that an issuer must have invested primarily in Qualifying TruPS Collateral to meet the requirements of the interim final rule; this is intended to cover those securitization vehicles that have invested a majority of their offering proceeds in Qualifying TruPS Collateral. The interim final rule also provides clarification that the relief relating to these TruPS CDOs also extends to activities of a banking entity acting as a sponsor for these securitization vehicles since acting as a sponsor might otherwise be subject to the prohibitions or requirements of section 619. For the avoidance of doubt, notwithstanding clause (iii) above, a banking entity may act as a market maker with respect to the interests of an issuer that qualifies for the exemption, in accordance with the applicable provisions of §§ _.4 and _.11 of the Final Rule. The Agencies note that nothing in the interim final rule limits or restricts the ability of the appropriate agency to place limits on any activity conducted or investment held pursuant to the exemption in a manner consistent with their safety and soundness or other authority to the extent the agency has such authority.

The Agencies believe that the approach adopted in the interim final rule appropriately reconciles the policies of section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act with its companion provision in section 171 of the Dodd-Frank Act and have attempted to encompass the class of instruments Congress intended to grandfather while limiting the scope of the interim final rule in keeping with the objectives of section 619. The Agencies have included a “reasonable belief” standard since the relevant CDOs were structured and made their investments many years ago and all of the relevant documentation may not be readily available to banking entities. 6 Based on discussions with major market participants involved in structuring and offering TruPS CDOs, the Agencies expect that the interim final rule will cover all of the issuers that were formed primarily for the purpose of investing in Qualifying TruPS Collateral. The Agencies request comment regarding whether a different approach is necessary to accomplish this objective.

The Agencies invite comment from all members of the public regarding all aspects of the interim final rule. The request for comment is limited to this interim final rule. The Agencies request comment on whether the interim final rule is consistent with the purposes of sections 619 and 171 of the Dodd-Frank Act.

The Agencies will carefully consider all comments that relate to this interim final rule.

The Administrative Procedure Act generally requires an agency to publish notice of a proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register . 7 This requirement does not apply, however, when the agency “for good cause finds . . . that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”  8

After the Agencies' adoption of the Final Rule implementing section 619, a number of community banking organizations reached out to the Agencies to express concerns about the Final Rule and, in particular, the implications for financial statement purposes relating to the banking organizations' holdings resulting from their previous capital-raising efforts involving TruPS issued by banking organizations for regulatory capital purposes. The Agencies requested comment in the Notices of Proposed Rulemaking issued by the Agencies  9 regarding the effects of the definition of covered fund and ownership interests on issuers of asset-backed securities, including the distinctions between debt and equity interests. 10 The Agencies also included a request for comment on trust preferred securities specifically in the context of the proposed rule's permitted activity for underwriting activities. 11 Notwithstanding such requests, the Agencies believe that the recently expressed concerns regarding the impact of including TruPS CDOs in the definition of covered fund or on investments by community banks in TruPS CDOs were not included in comments to the Agencies during the comment process.

The Agencies have considered carefully these recently identified concerns, particularly in light of the provisions in section 171 of the Dodd-Frank Act and the concerns raised by community banking organizations regarding the consistency of treatment regarding TruPS issued by community banking organizations, and grandfathered under section 171, and the TruPS CDOs that were used as capital access vehicles for the TruPS issuances. In light of the significant concerns expressed, the Agencies believe there is an urgent need to act in light of the uncertainty expressed by some community banking organizations about whether the Final Rule will require them to dispose of their holdings of TruPS CDOs, which they contend could have an immediate effect on their financial statements and their bank regulatory capital. The OCC, Board, FDIC and SEC noted in the Statement that their accounting staffs believe that, “consistent with generally accepted accounting principles, any actions in January 2014 that occur before the issuance of December 31, 2013 financial reports, including the FR Y-9C and the Call Report, should be considered when preparing those financial reports.” The Agencies' decision in this interim final rule to permit a banking entity to retain certain TruPS CDOs should be factored into the accounting analysis. Accordingly, the Agencies believe it necessary to take action at this time before banking entities are required to file their next financial reports. 12

Accordingly, for the reasons discussed throughout, the Agencies find good cause to act immediately to adopt this rule on an interim final basis without prior solicitation of comment. With this interim final rule and request for comment, the Agencies are not reopening the final rules that have previously been adopted under section 619.

Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act (Pub. L. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, 1471, 12 U.S.C. 4809) requires the Federal banking agencies to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. The Federal banking agencies believe that the interim final rule is written plainly and clearly, and request comment on whether there are ways the Federal banking agencies can make any final rule easier to understand.

The Agencies note that the new interim final rule does not create new regulatory obligations for banking entities, and therefore does not impose any new “collections of information” within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”), 13 nor does it create any new filing, reporting, recordkeeping, or disclosure reporting requirements. Accordingly, the Agencies did not submit the interim final rule to the Office of Management and Budget for review in accordance with the PRA. The Agencies request comment on their conclusion that there are no collections of information.

The interim final rule applies to banking entities that may have ownership interests in TruPS CDOs. The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act are not applicable to this interim final rule. 14 Nonetheless, the Agencies observe that in light of the way the interim final rule operates, they believe that, with respect to the entities subject to the interim final rule and within each Agency's respective jurisdiction, the interim final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Agencies request comment on their conclusion that the new interim final rule should not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1532, requires a Federal agency to prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating any rule likely to result in a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. The UMRA only applies when the Federal agency issues a general notice of proposed rulemaking. Since this rule is published as an interim final rule, it is not subject to section 202 of the UMRA.

This interim final rule is issued under section 13 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (12 U.S. 1851).

Add new § __.16 to read as follows:

(a) The prohibition contained in § __.10(a)(1) does not apply to the ownership by a banking entity of an interest in, or sponsorship of, any issuer if:

(1) The issuer was established, and the interest was issued, before May 19, 2010;

(2) The banking entity reasonably believes that the offering proceeds received by the issuer were invested primarily in Qualifying TruPS Collateral; and

(3) The banking entity acquired such interest on or before December 10, 2013 (or acquired such interest in connection with a merger with or acquisition of a banking entity that acquired the interest on or before December 10, 2013).

(b) For purposes of this § __.16, Qualifying TruPS Collateral shall mean any trust preferred security or subordinated debt instrument issued prior to May 19, 2010 by a depository institution holding company that, as of the end of any reporting period within 12 months immediately preceding the issuance of such trust preferred security or subordinated debt instrument, had total consolidated assets of less than $15,000,000,000 or issued prior to May 19, 2010 by a mutual holding company.

(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(3) of this section, a banking entity may act as a market maker with respect to the interests of an issuer described in paragraph (a) of this section in accordance with the applicable provisions of §§ __.4 and __.11.

(d) Without limiting the applicability of paragraph (a) of this section, the Board, the FDIC and the OCC will make public a non-exclusive list of issuers that meet the requirements of paragraph (a). A banking entity may rely on the list published by the Board, the FDIC and the OCC.

For the reasons stated in the Common Preamble, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency hereby amends chapter I of Title 12, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

In May 2013 the NCUA Board (Board) issued a proposed rule to permit Federal credit unions (FCUs or credit unions) to engage in derivatives transactions for the purpose of mitigating interest rate risk (IRR). The proposal also required federally insured, state-chartered credit unions (FISCUs) permitted by state law to engage in derivatives to follow the requirements of NCUA's rule. The proposed rule required a credit union seeking derivatives authority to meet minimum eligibility criteria and included two levels of authority, Level I and Level II. The two levels had different permissible limits of derivatives and regulatory requirements. To obtain Level I or Level II authority, the proposed rule required a credit union to apply to NCUA or, in the case of a FISCU, its state supervisory authority (SSA). In addition, the proposed rule described requirements on derivatives processes, systems, and personnel; experience requirements; and restrictions on the use of external service providers (ESPs). The proposed rule also addressed credit unions in NCUA's pilot program and regulatory violations. Finally, the Board specifically requested comment on the possibility of requiring credit unions that apply for derivatives authority to pay an application and/or supervision fee. The Board issued the proposed rule with a 60-day comment period.

The Board received 75 comments on the proposed rule: 28 from FCUs; 16 from FISCUs; 13 from state credit union leagues; 9 from credit union service organizations or third-party vendors, including investment advisors and brokers; 3 from trade associations; 3 from SSAs; 2 from law firms; and 1 from a Federal Home Loan Bank.

In general, commenters supported permitting credit unions to engage in derivatives transactions. However, all commenters opposed at least one aspect of the proposed rule. While most provisions of the rule elicited comments, commenters focused on fees, permissible derivatives, limits, processes, and experience requirements.

Most commenters believed the proposed requirements imposed high costs and regulatory burdens on credit unions. Virtually all of the commenters, however, believed that credit unions would be able to use derivatives as a meaningful IRR mitigation tool if the Board did not include application or supervisory fees and reduced the regulatory requirements. The Board addresses comments on the proposed rule in more detail in the following section.

The Board has made several changes in the final rule based on public comments. Most notably, the Board has condensed and simplified the rule and reduced the overall regulatory burden. The Board also decided not to include, in this final rule, fees associated with using derivatives. The final rule also addresses swap clearing regulations issued in early 2013 by the Commodities and Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The following is a brief summary of the final rule:

• The rule allows limited derivatives authority comprising of plain vanilla interest rate derivatives for balance sheet management and risk reduction.

• Derivatives exposure is limited by two related measures, a measure of notional amount of derivatives outstanding and a fair value loss limit. The limits are designed to work in tandem, with the notional limit a prospective limit on a credit union's derivatives activity and the fair value loss limit based on the actual performance of the derivatives held by a credit union.

○ The limit on notional amount of derivatives outstanding takes into account the type of derivative and the time to maturity, two key components that determine an instrument's sensitivity to interest rate changes. This innovation provides significant flexibility under the rule and improves the relationship between the notional limit and the fair value limit.

○ The fair value threshold, if breached, will require a participating credit union to cease new derivative investments, provide notification and develop a corrective action plan.

• Credit unions are required to apply for derivatives authority. Generally the application process will be conducted in two-stages. In the first stage, the credit union will present to NCUA an IRR mitigation plan, which demonstrates how derivatives fit within that plan and how it will acquire the appropriate resources, controls and systems to implement a sound derivatives program. In the second stage of the approval process, NCUA will evaluate the credit union on its actual readiness to engage in derivatives transactions based on the personnel, controls, and systems it has put in place. Credit unions new to derivatives authority must operate safely for one year under limited authorities before moving to full authority.

• The rule outlines the appropriate resources, controls and systems required for an effective derivatives program.

The Board believes the changes between the proposed and final rules will significantly lower the cost and burden for credit unions to use derivatives as part of their IRR mitigation strategy.

The proposed rule divided part 703 into two subparts, subpart A and subpart B. Subpart A consisted of the current part 703, with minor modifications, and subpart B consisted of rules and requirements related the use of derivatives. The Board did not receive any comments on the changes to Part 703, but is amending the definition of “derivative” in both subparts for accuracy. The Board has not made any other changes to the structure of Part 703.

In addition, the Board notes that the requirements of new subpart B do not apply to derivatives transactions that are permitted under § 703.14, which include European call options, interest rate lock commitments, certain embedded options, and certain options associated with the sale of loans on the secondary market.

The purpose and scope section of the proposed rule indicated that the rule applied to FISCUs that are permitted to engage in derivatives by state law. The purpose and scope section also outlined which sections of the rule applied specifically to the different levels of derivatives authority (Level I or Level II, as defined in the proposed rule). Based on public comment and other changes to the rule, the Board has significantly revised this section.

The proposed rule required any FISCU permitted by state law to engage in derivatives to follow NCUA's rule, including the application process and regulatory limits. Approximately one-quarter of the commenters addressed this requirement. All but one commenter argued that NCUA is encroaching on states' rights and should not regulate FISCUs' derivatives use. Commenters maintained that such regulation is the province of the states, and that NCUA did not provide sufficient support for Federal regulation of derivatives transactions.

After consideration of the comments, the Board has removed this requirement from the rule. Given the absence to date of any problems specific to FISCUs' derivatives use, FISCUs may follow applicable state law (including a state parity provision) or other SSA authorization, rather than this final rule.

NCUA will closely supervise all federally insured credit unions that engage in derivatives, and will address any safety and soundness concerns through use of applicable enforcement actions. Given the complexity of, and risks associated with, derivatives activity, NCUA will be publishing supervisory guidance in this area. This guidance will address standards for the safe and sound operations of a derivatives program, including expectations for comprehensive policies and procedures, counterparty and collateral management practices, internal control, accounting, and reporting systems, personnel with appropriate levels of expertise, and asset-liability management modeling capabilities. As insurer, NCUA's supervisory guidance will apply to all federally insured credit unions. The final rule also requires that a FISCU engaging in derivatives—whether pursuant to authority granted under state law (including a state parity provision) or other SSA authorization—must notify the applicable field director in writing at least 30 days before it begins engaging in such transactions. This provision will open a dialog between the FISCU and NCUA about the objectives of each new derivatives program. It will also facilitate efforts between NCUA and SSAs to coordinate off-site monitoring and on-site supervision.

The Board also wants to clarify application of this rule to § 703.14(c), which reads as follows:

(c) Registered investment company. A Federal credit union may invest in a registered investment company or collective investment fund, as long as the prospectus of the company or fund restricts the investment portfolio to investments and investment transactions that are permissible for Federal credit unions.

The Board notes that this final rule will not allow FCUs that are approved for derivatives to invest in a registered investment company or collective investment fund that has derivatives. The Board does not believe it is appropriate for FCUs to invest in entities that may use derivatives for non-hedging purposes. The Board notes that derivatives are complex instruments that can pose significant risk.

The Board has taken steps to mitigate that risk for credit unions using derivatives, but does not have authority to do the same with respect to registered investment companies and collective investment funds. The Board is concerned that such entities using derivatives may put credit unions, and therefore the NCUSIF, at risk. Thus, NCUA has included a clarifying provision in the final rule stating that FCUs are not permitted to invest in registered investment companies or collective investment funds that allow derivatives to be in their investment portfolios. The Board also notes that the purpose of this rule is to permit credit unions to use derivatives for the very limited purpose of mitigating IRR. It never intended for this rule to be a vehicle for credit unions to take on additional risks through a registered investment company or a collective investment fund.

The proposed rule included several new definitions. The Board received three comments asking for clearer definitions of “plain vanilla derivatives,” “leveraged derivative,” and “weighted average life.” In addition to clarifying several of the definitions, the Board has added new definitions to correspond with other changes in the rule. The Board has also deleted definitions of terms that are no longer used in the rule.

The proposed rule permitted credit unions that have derivatives authority to use interest rate swaps and interest rate caps. The proposal further limited the use of interest rate swaps and interest rate caps to those that are non-leveraged, based on domestic rates, denominated in U.S. dollars, are not used to create structured liability offerings, and settled within three days. The proposal further limited the use of interest rate swaps to those that did not have a fluctuating notional amount.

More than half of the commenters maintained that the list of permissible derivatives was too restrictive to allow credit unions to adequately hedge against IRR. Many of these commenters believed NCUA should allow interest rate floors as a means of hedging against falling rates. Other commenters suggested the list of permissible derivatives should include swaptions, basis swaps, forward settling swaps, swaps with amortizing features, interest rate collars, and interest rate futures. These commenters cited IRR mitigation and low levels of complexity as reasons for permitting these additional derivatives and characteristics.

The Board has considered all of the derivatives and characteristics suggested by commenters, and has expanded the list of permissible derivatives and characteristics in the final rule. In reviewing each suggested derivative, the Board compared the product's utility in mitigating IRR to the derivative's overall complexity and risk. After careful deliberation, the Board is permitting credit unions to apply for the following derivatives and characteristics:

On June 11, 2013, at 78 FR 34960, the Federal Register published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to Model EC 155B and EC155B1 helicopters. The NPRM proposed inspecting certain part-numbered fittings for a crack and, if there is a crack, removing the fittings from service before further flight. Also, the NPRM proposed removing certain part-numbered fittings from service within 180 hours time-in-service (TIS) and prohibiting the fittings from being eligible for installation on any helicopter. The proposed requirements were intended to detect a crack in the fittings to prevent loss of the upper fin and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

The NPRM was prompted by AD No. 2011-0108, dated June 7, 2011, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for Eurocopter Model EC 155B and EC155B1 helicopters. EASA advises of an in-flight loss of a fin on a Model EC155B1 helicopter. According to EASA, a crack in the fittings attaching the upper fin to the fenestron (tail rotor assembly) was discovered during an investigation. As a result, EASA issued an emergency AD to mandate repetitive inspections of the upper fin attachment fittings. EASA states that Eurocopter developed modification (MOD) 0754B40 to increase the strength of the fuselage-fin junction fittings by installing two reinforced single-piece fittings to replace the affected fittings, which is terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirements. EASA subsequently issued AD No. 2011-0108, which superseded its emergency AD, to require installation of MOD 0754B40 and to retain the repetitive inspection requirements until the MOD is installed.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM (78 FR 34960, June 11, 2013).

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

This AD does not require replacing the upper fin to fenestron fittings with reinforced fittings in accordance with MOD 0754B40 within 6 calendar months as stated in the EASA AD, but rather requires removing the affected fittings from service within the equivalent 180 hours TIS.

Eurocopter has issued Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 05A017, Revision 2, dated December 9, 2010, which specifies repetitively inspecting the fittings for a crack and replacing each fitting if there is a crack. Eurocopter has also issued Service Bulletin No. 53-029, Revision 1, dated March 10, 2011, which specifies replacing the fittings with reinforced fittings in accordance with MOD 0754B40.

We estimate that this AD will affect 9 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators will incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD based on an average labor rate of $85 per work hour. It will take 1 work hour to inspect the fittings and about 3 inspections before replacement. It will take 8 work hours to replace the fittings, and required parts will cost $3,311. Based on these figures, the total cost will be $4,246 per helicopter and $38,214 for the U.S. fleet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On June 20, 2013, at 78 FR 37152, the Federal Register published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Bell Model 206L, L-1, L-3, and L-4 helicopters. The NPRM proposed measuring the M/R blade spar spacer. If a blade is fitted with an oversized spacer, the NPRM proposed reidentifying the blade, reducing the life limit for the blade from 3,600 hours time-in-service (TIS) to 2,300 hours TIS, and making an entry on the component history card or equivalent record. The proposed requirements were intended to prevent failure of an M/R blade and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

The NPRM was prompted by AD No. CF-2011-43, dated November 10, 2011, issued by TCCA, which is the aviation authority for Canada, to correct an unsafe condition for Bell Model 206L, L-1, L-3, and L-4 helicopters. TCCA advises that, during manufacturing, some M/R blades were inadvertently fitted with oversized spar spacers, which reduces the life of the blades from 3600 to 2300 hours “air time.” As a result, TCCA has mandated procedures to reidentify blades that have oversized spar spacers with new part numbers and reduce the life limit for such blades.

After our NPRM (78 FR 37152, June 30, 2013), was published, we received comments from one commenter.

The one commenter stated that Bell has released Revision A of Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 206L-09-163, dated April 19, 2012, and requested that both the original ASB and Revision A be included in the final AD.

We agree that the AD should reference Revision A of the ASB. This revision only updates Bell's warranty information and does not change the technical aspects or the corrective actions. Thus, performing the actions in either the original ASB or Revision A before the effective date of this AD would constitute prior compliance with this AD.

These helicopters have been approved by TCCA and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Canada, TCCA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the TCCA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by TCCA, reviewed the relevant information, considered the comment received, and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed with the change previously described. Also, under paragraph (f) of the NPRM, the TCCA AD is incorrectly referenced as No. “CF-2011-41.” We have corrected paragraph (f) in this AD to correctly identify the TCCA AD as “CF-2011-43.” These changes are consistent with the intent of the proposals in the NPRM and will not increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of this AD.

TCCA requires compliance time within 100 hours air time or 30 days. This AD requires compliance within 100 hours TIS.

Bell issued ASB No. 206L-09-163, dated November 13, 2009, which specifies inspecting certain M/R blades for oversized spar spacers and reidentifying and reducing the life limit of any blade with an oversized spar spacer from 3600 to 2300 flight hours. On April 19, 2012, Bell issued ASB No. 206L-09-163, Revision A, dated April 19, 2012, to update the warranty information.

We estimate that this AD will affect 688 helicopters of U.S. Registry.

We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. It will take about 2.5 work hours to measure the spar spacer and reidentify the blade at $85 per work hour for a total cost of $213 per helicopter.

According to Bell's service information some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost to affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage by Bell. Accordingly, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

On August 5, 2013, at 78 FR 47230, the Federal Register published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Eurocopter Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350C, AS350D, and AS350D1 helicopters. The NPRM proposed to require measuring the distance between the end of the collective locking stud and the locking strip and repairing the locking stud if the clearance is insufficient. The proposed requirements were intended to prevent the collective from becoming inadvertently locked in the low position and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

The NPRM was prompted by AD No. 2009-0019, dated February 3, 2009, issued by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for the Eurocopter Model AS350 helicopters. EASA advises that the clearance between the collective locking stud and the locking strip may be insufficient when the collective is positioned in the low pitch stop. During an autorotation test flight, the collective rubbed against the locking strip in the low pitch position. The rubbing was due to inadequate clearance and could result in the collective being inadvertently locked in the low pitch position.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM (78 FR 47230, August 5, 2013).

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

The EASA AD does not apply to Model AS350C or AS350D1 helicopters, and this AD applies to these models because they have a similarly-designed collective pitch lock. The EASA AD applies to the Model AS350BB, and this AD does not because that model does not have a U.S. type certificate. This AD requires an initial inspection within 100 hours time-in-service, while the EASA AD requires this inspection “after the last flight of the day.”

Eurocopter issued Service Bulletin No. 67.00.37, Revision 2, dated December 2, 2008, originally issued on September 27, 2007, and also identified as modification (MOD) 073237, which contains procedures for replacing the locking stud on the collective levers with a new locking stud with higher wear resistance. The new locking stud is longer than the previous one and has reduced the distance between the locking stud and the locking strip. In some cases, the reduced distance is insufficient when the collective is positioned in the low pitch position causing the collective to lock in that position. As a result, Eurocopter has issued one Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB), Revision 0, dated January 12, 2008, with two numbers. EASB No. 05.00.58 is for civil Model AS350B, BA, BB, B1, B2, B3, and D helicopters and military Model AS350L1 helicopters. EASB No. 05.00.35 is for military Model AS550A2, C2, C3, and U2 helicopters. The EASB specifies measuring to ensure a required minimum distance between the locking stud and the locking strip and specifies a repair solution in case the distance is insufficient. As a precaution, Eurocopter extended the measure and repair to helicopters with locking studs before MOD 073237. Eurocopter also revised Service Bulletin No. 67.00.37 to include these procedures.

We estimate that this AD will affect 651 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs to comply with this AD. We estimate 1 work hour to measure the clearance and repair the locking stud and locking strip at $85 per work hour. Required parts will cost $95 per helicopter. Based on these estimates, the total cost per helicopter will be $180, and the total cost for the fleet will be $117,180.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2011-27-51, Amendment 39-16915 (77 FR 2439, January 18, 2012), (“AD 2011-27-51”). AD 2011-27-51 applied to certain Beechcraft Corporation Models 1900, 1900C, and 1900D airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 17, 2013 (78 FR 42724). The NPRM proposed to retain all of the requirements of AD 2011-27-51 and add the requirement to install the secondary elevator bob-weight stop bolt, Kit 114-5060. We are issuing this AD to prevent the elevator bob-weight (stabilizer weight) from traveling past its stop bolt and allowing the attaching linkage to move over-center and lead to reduced nose down elevator control, which could result in loss of control.

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

Pat Kremer requested we change the compliance time for installing the secondary elevator bob-weight stop bolt Kit 114-5060 from 600 hours time-in-service (TIS) to 1,200 hours TIS or 24 months to coincide with the continuous inspection program for the Model 1900C airplanes. This requested change would minimize the impact or down time for the airplanes.

We disagree with this comment. We do not believe that 1,200 hours TIS or 24 months will adequately mitigate the unsafe condition on the entire affected airplane fleet. We determined that 600 hours TIS is the appropriate compliance time to address the identified unsafe condition. The proposed compliance time change may be adequate to address the unsafe condition on certain individual airplanes, and the FAA will evaluate any alternative method of compliance (AMOC) request we receive as specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

We did not make any changes to this final rule AD action based on this comment.

Travis Reinhardt requested the service information specify that a collar be used with the optional Hi-Lok pin. He also requested the service information contain better instructions for inhibiting and un-inhibiting the control system during installation of the secondary elevator bob-weight stop bolt Kit 114-5060.

We agree with this comment. The collar should be specified to provide complete instructions for installation of the secondary elevator bob-weight stop bolt Kit 114-5060. The manufacturer has revised the kit installation instructions to specify the collar for use with the optional Hi-Lok pin and to clarify the intent for inhibiting the control system during installation of the kit. However, these clarification changes to the kit installation instructions do not affect the language used in this AD action or require any additional action for those airplanes that previously had the kit incorporated.

We did not make any changes to the actions required in this final rule AD action based on this comment.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 42724, July 17, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 42724, July 17, 2013).

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

We estimate that this AD affects 165 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

The on-condition costs for any corrective action that may be necessary based on the above inspection would vary from airplane to airplane, and we have no way of determining that cost.

The cost of the inspection is a retained cost from AD 2011-27-51 (77 FR 2439, January 18, 2012) and does not add a burden over what was already imposed.

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

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

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

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

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

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

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

Discussion

On June 5, 2013, at 78 FR 33768, the Federal Register published our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 to add an AD that would apply to Agusta Model A109C, A109S, and A109K2 helicopters, all serial numbers; Model A109E helicopters, serial number (S/N) 11002 through 11807 except S/N 11796; and Model AW109SP helicopters, S/N 22202 through 22278, except S/N 22239, 22264, 22266, 22272, 22273, 22275, and 22277. The NPRM proposed to require repetitively inspecting the lock wires that secure the T/R locking nut to the housing to determine whether both wires are present and not damaged. If only one wire is installed and it is not damaged, the NPRM proposed installing a second lock wire. If one or both lock wires are installed and either one or both are damaged, the NPRM proposed removing and reassembling the housing and slider group of the T/R rotating controls. The NPRM further proposed removing and reassembling the housing and slider group of the T/R rotating controls within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) if not accomplished as a result of the inspections. Removing and reassembling the housing and slider group of the T/R rotating controls, either within 100 hours TIS or because a lock wire is damaged, was proposed as terminating action for the repetitive inspections. The proposed requirements were intended to prevent failure of the T/R and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

The NPRM was prompted by AD No. 2012-0195-E, dated September 24, 2012, and corrected September 25, 2012 (AD 2012-0195-E), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA issued AD 2012-0195-E to correct an unsafe condition for certain Agusta Model A109E, A109LUH, A109S, AW109SP, A109C, and A109K2 helicopters. EASA advised that they received reports of the T/R locking nut, part number (P/N) 109-0130-97, loosening on A109 helicopters. According to EASA, an investigation revealed that, in every occurrence, one or both of the lock wires securing the locking nut were either damaged or absent from the T/R, which could lead to failure of the T/R function and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. AD 2012-0195-E requires repetitively inspecting the lock wires which secure the T/R locking nut for missing and damaged lock wires, and removing and reassembling the housing and slider group of the T/R rotating controls, which is terminating action for the repetitive inspections.

After our NPRM (78 FR 33768, June 5, 2013) was published, we received comments from one commenter.

One commenter requested we include a statement that previous compliance with the applicable Agusta Bollettino Tecnico (BT) fulfills the requirements of the AD. We disagree that such a statement is necessary. Paragraph (d) of the AD states you are responsible for performing each AD action unless it has already been accomplished. This would include previous compliance with the portions of the service information that are consistent with the requirements of the AD.

The commenter also requested that we include a statement that the removal, disassembly, reassembly, and reinstallation of the T/R housing and slider group is to be accomplished in accordance with the pertinent part of the Agusta BT, as this would clarify the scope and detail of work required. We disagree. First, such a statement is not necessary, as the Agusta BT does not provide a greater level of scope and detail of work required. The BT only states that removal, disassembly, reassembly, and reinstallation is to be accomplished in accordance with the appropriate maintenance manual. Second, such a statement would not be appropriate because the Agusta BT is only one method of compliance for this AD. An operator may comply using other methods as long as all work is done in a manner acceptable to the FAA.

These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Italy and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Italy, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA, reviewed the relevant information, considered the comments received, and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed, except we are including an additional reference for the actions constituting terminating action for the AD. This change will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

The EASA AD requires reassembling the housing and slider group within 100 flight hours or 7 months, while this AD requires this action within 100 hours TIS.

Agusta has published BT No. 109-134 for Model A109C helicopters, BT No. 109EP-121 for Model A109E helicopters, BT No. 109S-48 for Model A109S helicopters, BT No. 109K-54 for Model A109K2 helicopters, and BT No. 109SP-051 for Model AW109SP helicopters. All of the BTs are dated September 21, 2012. The BTs specify procedures for inspecting the lock wires of the T/R locking nut and for removing and reassembling the housing and slider group of the T/R rotating controls.

We estimate that this AD affects 146 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Based on an average labor rate of $85 per hour, inspecting the lock wire will require about 0.25 work-hour, for a cost per helicopter of $22 and a total cost to U.S. operators of $3,212 per inspection cycle. If necessary, installing a lock wire will require about 0.25 work-hour and the required parts cost are negligible, for a cost per helicopter of $22 and a total cost to U.S. operators of $3,212. Removing and reassembling the housing and slider group of the T/R rotating controls will require about 8 work-hours, for a cost per helicopter of $680 and a total cost to U.S. operators of $99,280.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coastal Bridge Company, on behalf of the Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans, requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule on the L & N Railroad/Almonaster Road drawbridge across the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, mile 2.9 at New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana.

The bridge has a vertical clearance of one foot above high water in the closed-to-navigation position and unlimited clearance in the open-to-navigation position. Navigation on the waterway consists of tugs with tows, small ships, fishing vessels, sailing vessels, and other recreational craft. Presently, in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5, the draw shall open on signal for the passage of vessels.

This temporary deviation allows the bascule bridge to remain closed to navigation from 7 a.m. on Monday, February 10, 2014 through 11:59 p.m. on Wednesday, February 12, 2014, except that the bridge will open to pass all waiting vessels at 6:45 a.m., 12 noon, 4 p.m. and 12 midnight daily during the closure period. During this time, repairs will be performed to the electrical systems of the bridge.

During the closure period, the bridge will not be able to open for the passage of vessels except during the scheduled periods of operation. Alternate routes are available via the Chef Menteur Pass and the Rigolets.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35, the draw bridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation.

This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

Coastal Bridge Company, on behalf of the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule on the SR 57 drawbridge across the Dulac Bayou, mile 0.6, at Dulac, Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana.

The bridge has a vertical clearance of 7 feet above mean high water in the closed-to-navigation position and unlimited in the open-to-navigation position. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.5, the draw shall open on signal for the passage of vessels.

This temporary deviation allows the swing bridge to remain closed to navigation for a total of 20 days from 6 a.m. on Monday, March 10, 2014 through 5 p.m. on Saturday, March 29, 2014, except that the bridge will open to pass all waiting vessels at 6 a.m., 12 noon, and 5 p.m. daily. During this time, repairs will be performed to the hydraulic system of the bridge to include removing and replacing the end wedge-drive system hydraulic pressure unit, all end wedge-drive system hydraulic piping, and four end wedge-drive hydraulic cylinders.

During the closure period, the bridge will not be able to open for the passage of vessels except during the scheduled periods of operation. No alternate routes are available during this deviation; however, the bridge owner will attempt to contact all waterway users to keep them abreast of the repair work. Navigation on the waterway consists of small tugs with tows, fishing vessels, and other recreational craft.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35, the draw bridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation.

This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

The U.S. Army Rock Island Arsenal requested a temporary deviation for the Rock Island Railroad and Highway Drawbridge, across the Upper Mississippi River, mile 482.9, at Rock Island, Illinois to remain in the closed-to-navigation position for a one and a half hour period from 8 a.m. to 9:30 a.m., April 12, 2014, while the River Bandits 5K Run/Walk is held between the cities of Davenport, IA and Rock Island, IL.

The Rock Island Railroad and Highway Drawbridge currently operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5, which states the general requirement that drawbridges shall open promptly and fully for the passage of vessels when a request to open is given in accordance with the subpart.

There are no alternate routes for vessels transiting this section of the Upper Mississippi River.

The Rock Island Railroad and Highway Drawbridge, in the closed-to-navigation position, provides a vertical clearance of 23.8 feet above normal pool. Navigation on the waterway consists primarily of commercial tows and recreational watercraft. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with waterway users. No objections were received.

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

Coastal Bridge Company, on behalf of the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule on the LA 315 drawbridge across the Falgout Canal, mile 3.1, in Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana.

The bridge has a vertical clearance of 3.5 feet above mean high water in the closed-to-navigation position and unlimited in the open-to-navigation position. Presently, in accordance with 33 CFR 117.444, the draw of the LA 315 bridge across Falgout Canal, mile 3.1, shall open on signal; except that from 15 August to 5 June, the draw need not be opened from 7 a.m. to 8 a.m. and from 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday except Federal holidays. The draw shall open on signal for an emergency aboard a vessel.

This temporary deviation allows the swing bridge to remain closed to navigation for a total of 20 days from 6 a.m. on Monday, February 10, 2014 through 5 p.m. on Saturday, March 1, 2014, except that the bridge will open to pass all waiting vessels at 6 a.m., noon, and 5 p.m. daily. During this time, repairs will be performed to the hydraulic and electrical systems of the bridge.

No alternate routes are available during this deviation; however, the bridge owner will attempt to contact all waterway users to keep them abreast of the repair work. Navigation on the waterway consists of small tugs with tows, fishing vessels, and other recreational craft. The bridge opens an average of 426 times per month for the passage of vessels. This deviation has been coordinated with waterway users.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35, the draw bridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation.

This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

Table of Contents for Preamble I. Abbreviations II. Basis and Purpose III. Background IV. Discussion of Comments to SNPRM V. Discussion of Final Rule VI. Regulatory Analyses A. Regulatory Planning and Review B. Small Entities C. Assistance for Small Entities D. Collection of Information E. Federalism F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act G. Taking of Private Property H. Civil Justice Reform I. Protection of Children J. Indian Tribal Governments K. Energy Effects L. Technical Standards M. Environment I. Abbreviations AB Able Body Seaman APPS Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships CFR Code of Federal Regulations COMDTINST COMMANDANT INSTRUCTION 7310.1M DCR Dry Cargo Residue DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement EIS Environmental Impact Statement E.O. Executive Order EPA Environmental Protection Agency FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement FR Federal Register GLWQA Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 2012 ICR Information Collection Request IR Interim Rule MARPOL 73/78 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships NAICS North American Industry Classification System NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking OMB Office of Management and Budget ROD Record of Decision PIC Person in charge SBA U.S. Small Business Administration SNPRM Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking §  Section symbol

the Act the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004

U.S.C. United States Code

This final rule replaces the interim rule (73 FR 56492, Sep. 29, 2008) that has been in effect since 2008. The legal basis for this rulemaking is section 623(b) of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004 (“the Act,” Pub. L. 108-293). Section 623(b) of the Act gives the Coast Guard the authority, “notwithstanding any other law . . . to promulgate regulations governing the discharge of dry bulk cargo residue on the Great Lakes.”

The purpose of this rulemaking, as a whole, is to exercise the authority conferred on the Coast Guard by the Act in a way that appropriately balances the needs of maritime commerce and environmental protection, by determining how, if at all, the discharge of dry cargo residue (DCR) can continue in the Great Lakes within a regulatory framework that imposes environmentally appropriate conditions on DCR discharges. The purpose of this final rule is to provide that regulatory framework.

Prior to opening this rulemaking, we published a notice of inquiry requesting information about the then-current status of dry cargo operations in the Great Lakes (69 FR 77147; correction, 70 FR 1400) on December 27, 2004 and January 7, 2005, respectively. The regulatory history for this rulemaking began with a March 9, 2006 announcement of our intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in support of the rulemaking and a request for public comments on the scope of the EIS (“scoping notice,” 71 FR 12209). On June 8, 2006, we published a notice for a public meeting on the scope of the EIS, and again requested public comments (71 FR 33312). We held a scoping meeting in Cleveland, OH, on July 6, 2006. We published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and notice of the availability of the accompanying draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) on May 23, 2008 (73 FR 30014). We announced public meetings on the NPRM and DEIS on June 6, 2008 (73 FR 32273), and held those meetings in Duluth, MN, and Cleveland, OH, on July 15 and 17, 2008, respectively. With the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), we announced the availability of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) on August 22, 2008 (EPA at 73 FR 49667; Coast Guard at 73 FR 49694), and the Record of Decision (ROD) adopting the findings of the FEIS was signed September 23, 2008. We published an interim rule on September 29, 2008 (73 FR 56492). On December 29, 2008 (73 FR 79496), we published a second scoping notice announcing our intent to prepare a new “tiered” (updated) EIS in support of a final rule, requested public comments, and announced a public scoping meeting, which was held in Chicago, IL, on January 28, 2009. We published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) on July 30, 2012 (77 FR 44528). With the EPA, we announced the availability of the FEIS for this final rule on November 1, 2013 (78 FR 65643).

A vessel loading or unloading bulk dry cargo often accumulates small amounts of dry cargo residue on its deck, and more substantial amounts in cargo tunnels within the vessel, where the DCR mixes with sump water. If these accumulations are not addressed, the deck residue can adversely affect crew safety, and the tunnel residue can adversely affect vessel stability, which in turn risks the safety of the entire vessel, its crew, and the maritime environment. DCR accumulation can be mitigated or reduced through the use of DCR control equipment or procedures, but it is not always operationally feasible or economically practical to deploy that equipment or procedures only while the vessel is in port. Consequently, a bulk dry cargo vessel may find it advantageous to sweep residue from the deck, or to discharge tunnel sump water, while the vessel is in transit. For oceangoing vessels on the high seas, this is generally permissible under international maritime law, but it is generally prohibited within each country's navigable waters, including a country's navigable rivers and lakes. For most bulk dry cargo vessels operating on rivers and lakes, the general prohibition against in-transit DCR discharges does not impose special hardships on the vessel operator, because transit time is short and the sheltered river and lake waters limit any risk to the vessel from conducting DCR control measures only while the vessel is in port.

However, Great Lakes vessel operators may experience special difficulties with DCR accumulation. The Great Lakes support a significant volume of bulk dry cargo shipping that remains within the land-locked Great Lakes system. All Great Lakes waters are considered either U.S. or Canadian navigable waters, and hence are subject to the general prohibition against in-transit DCR discharges. Transits on the Great Lakes can be many hours long, through waters that can be very deep, very wide, and subject to severe weather risks. Thus, in some ways Great Lakes bulk dry cargo vessels are more like vessels in oceangoing trade than they are like vessels on most rivers or lakes. In recognition of these special factors, the Coast Guard's Ninth District adopted an “interim enforcement policy” in 1995, which allowed continued and “incidental” discharges of non-toxic, non-hazardous DCR in defined areas of the Great Lakes. On three occasions between 1998 and 2004, Congress required the Coast Guard to continue enforcing the interim enforcement policy.

In 2004, Congress prepared a legislative conference report in support of section 623(b) of the Act, which provides the authority for this rulemaking, expressing Congress's expectation that in regulating Great Lakes DCR discharges, given the special characteristics of the Great Lakes, the Coast Guard would adopt an approach “that appropriately balances the needs of maritime commerce and environmental protection.” House Report 108-617.

Our interim rule amended 33 CFR 151.66, a Coast Guard regulation that implements the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS) 33 U.S.C. 1901 et seq. That regulation generally prohibits the discharge of DCR—an “operational waste” and, hence, “garbage” as both terms are defined in 33 CFR 151.05—in all U.S. navigable waters. The interim rule amended that prohibition with respect to the U.S. waters of the Great Lakes. It allowed non-hazardous and non-toxic DCR discharges in limited areas of the Great Lakes, provided that carriers observed recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and it encouraged carriers to adopt voluntary control measures for minimizing discharges. The interim rule applied to the owners and operators of U.S., Canadian, and other foreign vessels carrying bulk dry cargo on the U.S. waters of the Great Lakes, and also to the owners and operators of U.S. vessels carrying bulk dry cargo when they are on the Canadian waters of the Great Lakes. Non-self-propelled barges were excluded from the interim rule amendment unless they are part of an integrated tug-and-barge unit.

Our ROD in support of the interim rule concluded that the interim rule's only adverse environmental impacts would be minor and indirect, and that an outright ban of DCR discharges could cause an adverse economic impact for carriers and related industries in the Great Lakes region. Therefore, we found that allowing DCR discharges in the Great Lakes, under the conditions imposed by the interim rule, struck “the best balance between economic and environmental concerns that can be achieved, given currently available information.” ROD, p. 4. The conditions the interim rule imposed on DCR discharges were intended to limit even minor and indirect impacts of DCR discharges, and to give us the regulatory tools we needed to monitor discharges in the future.

We stated in the interim rule that, before taking final action in this rulemaking, we would “determine if, in the long term, the optimal balancing of commercial and environmental interests requires the mandatory use of DCR control measures, the adjustment of the geographical boundaries within which those discharges are currently allowed, or other regulatory changes” (73 FR at 56495). We have now made that determination and accordingly, we are issuing this final rule. The final rule's provisions are identical to those we proposed in the SNPRM, except insofar as we have decided to retain existing reporting and recordkeeping requirements for the final rule's first year in effect, as a transitional measure. For a detailed discussion, see part V of this preamble.

We received eight public comments from seven commenters on the SNPRM. Two of the commenters were individuals, three were industry associations, one was an alliance of advocacy groups with a shared interest in ensuring “that commercial navigation practices in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River do not have a deleterious impact on the basin's freshwater ecosystem and dependent communities and economies,” and one was the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. The commenters raised the following issues.

Legal basis. The advocacy alliance said our interim rule and our final rule, are inconsistent with APPS and that section 623(b) of the Act does not provide an exception from APPS. We disagree that the Act provides no exception from APPS. In passing APPS, Congress gave the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating sufficient regulatory authority to implement it (33 U.S.C. 1903(c)(1)) and the Secretary delegated that authority to the Coast Guard (DHS Delegation No. 0170.1(77)). Section 1903(c)(1) was last amended in 1996, and there was no logical reason for Congress to do more if Congress intended the general language of that provision to govern Coast Guard rulemaking on any topic and in any waters to which APPS might be applicable. Nevertheless, on three subsequent occasions, in 1998, 2000, and 2004, the 105th, 106th, and 108th Congresses saw fit to legislate three specific exceptions to section 1903(c)(1) with respect to the discharge of DCR in the Great Lakes: Public Law 105-383, section 415; Public Law 106-554, section 1117; and Public Law 108-293, section 623. Not one of these subsequent specific enactments can be logically explained in any other way than by inferring that Congress intends for the Coast Guard to take into account factors unique to the handling of DCR on the Great Lakes in regulating DCR discharges in those waters, notwithstanding how APPS would apply to other topics involving the Great Lakes, and notwithstanding how APPS would apply to DCR discharges in other waters.

Need for further regulatory measures. The three industry associations questioned the need for further regulatory measures. They said the current interim rule's requirements already achieve the balance between environmental protection and commercial interests that Congress intended. They also reminded us of the relatively small volume of DCR discharges given the volume of bulk dry cargo shipments, and of our previous finding of only minor and indirect adverse environmental impacts from DCR discharges. We agree with these statements, but we also recognize that in the absence of Coast Guard regulations allowing limited discharges, discharges of any kind would be prohibited and industry would have to bear the cost of eliminating any DCR discharges. In our view, the additional measures imposed by this final rule will help minimize adverse environmental impacts, without exposing industry to unreasonable regulatory costs. One of the three associations commented that effective DCR minimization procedures, including DCR management plans are already in general use. To the extent that is the case, the incremental cost of this final rule will be minimized and will be felt only by parties who are not currently operating at the general level.

Environmental analysis. The advocacy alliance made several comments about the DEIS that accompanied the SNPRM.

First, the alliance said our characterization of the environmental impacts of permitted DCR discharges as “minor and indirect” is not supported with sufficient evidence in the record and should be reconsidered. We disagree with this statement. Our analysis shows that the DCR deposition rate in open Great Lakes waters is within natural deposition rates—0.2 percent or less of the natural deposition rate even in areas of highest DCR discharge activity. Only port and nearshore areas experience deposition rates higher than the natural deposition rate. The DCR-discharge impact in those areas must be mitigated as we described in the DEIS's preferred alternative. The criteria for determining the effects on environmental and human resources for each of the alternatives were established through collaboration with experienced National Environmental Policy Act practitioners and with the EPA as a cooperating agency. The evaluation of the impacts was based on scientific studies, vetted through expert panels. The results were published in draft and final environmental impact statements issued prior to publication of the interim rule, resulting in further refinement of the analysis.

Second, the alliance said we should reassess the effects of DCR discharges on the physical sediment of the Great Lakes rather than rely on the findings in the interim rule's FEIS and ROD. The Coast Guard did, in fact, reassess the effects on the physical sediment evaluated in the FEIS based on the analysis of vessel DCR records and direct observations subsequent to publication of the interim rule. We did not find a significant change in the results stated in the interim rule's FEIS.

Third, the alliance said we had not adequately estimated the volume of DCR discharge so as to permit informed decision making on the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts to the Great Lakes. We disagree with this statement. To determine the volume of DCR discharge we conducted in-depth studies outlined in Appendix N of the interim rule's FEIS. Subsequent to publication of the interim rule, we analyzed vessel DCR records and made direct observations.

Fourth, the alliance said the SNPRM's DEIS predicted DCR discharge reductions that are inconsistent with our statement that the majority of vessels already effectively minimize DCR discharge. There is no inconsistency. The predicted DCR discharge reductions from this rulemaking do not conflict with the already low current discharge rates from vessels. However, further reductions in the discharge rates are feasible with limited impacts to industry.

Finally, the alliance said that, with respect to the potential introduction of toxic components into the Lakes' sediments, the issue is not only whether those sediments are currently contaminated at levels sufficient to adversely affect the natural communities of the Great Lakes, but also whether those levels might be reached if DCR discharges are allowed to continue. The alliance said this possibility is not fully explored in the SNPRM's DEIS, and that we have ignored the recommendation of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to undertake a rigorous front-end analysis of the potential for toxic constituents in the types of cargo that produce DCR. We disagree. Under the Clean Water Act, vessels are prohibited from discharging DCR that is toxic, hazardous, or both. The 1995 interim enforcement policy allowed incidental DCR discharges only if the DCR was non-toxic and non-hazardous, and our 2008 interim rule also applied only to non-toxic, non-hazardous DCR. We addressed NOAA's recommendations in the 2008 FEIS. (See U.S. Coast Guard 2002, “A Study of Dry Cargo Residue Discharges in the Great Lakes” and U.S. Coast Guard 2006, “Study of Incidental Dry Cargo Residue Discharges in the Great Lakes” referenced in the 2008 FEIS and posted on the Docket). We have extensively and thoroughly evaluated the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of DCR discharges, including toxicity. Our FEIS finds that while sediment concentrations exceeded some threshold effect concentrations in DCR sweeping areas and some toxicity was observed, the sediment concentrations were similar to those in areas used as a control group for sampling purposes, and the toxicity does not appear to be associated with any chemical constituent attributable to DCR, indicating that our long-standing restriction of DCR discharges to non-toxic and non-hazardous DCR is being observed. We do not expect the predicted rates and composition of DCR discharges to contribute to raising sediment toxicity levels such that they will adversely affect the ecosystems.

Federalism. All three industry associations and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality commented on the interaction between the interim rule and final rule, as Federal regulations, and the water quality laws of States in the Great Lakes region. The associations pointed out that we have not preempted States from adopting or enforcing their own laws affecting DCR discharges in their waters. They are concerned that the lack of Federal preemption will lead to a patchwork of different State requirements. One of these associations said that the imposition of more stringent restrictions or even discharge bans by individual States would also result in severe hardship on vessels and economic harm to commerce on the Great Lakes, while providing no additional environmental benefit.

The Michigan agency said that DCR discharges in Michigan waters would be in violation of section 324.9502 of the State's Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act. While acknowledging that the lack of Federal preemption leaves Michigan free to enforce this statute in its waters, the agency said this could leave industry confused, that it places a significant potential burden for enforcement on Michigan, and is contrary to the Coastal Zone Management Act.

Neither the interim rule nor this final rule expressly preempts State laws relating to DCR discharges. As we stated in the interim rule, 73 FR 56492 at 56497, col. 2, carriers must comply not only with Coast Guard DCR discharge regulations, but with “all applicable Federal and State laws regulating DCR discharges,” and we “will work with States and carriers to make sure carriers are informed of any State laws that could impose more restrictions on DCR discharges” than are imposed by our regulations. We do not believe the final rule will confuse the industry because it allows for continuing the current industry practices with regard to dry cargo residues, which have been in place for decades. It incorporates recordkeeping requirements that are similar to regulations with which industry already must and does comply. This final rule does not frustrate or conflict with the laws of any State; nor is it inconsistent with any State coastal management program that may impose additional restrictions on DCR discharges.

Vessel operations. Two of the industry associations commented on the affected industry's importance to the regional and national economies. Both expressed concern over the cost implications of delaying a vessel's voyage to remove DCR while in port, in light of the high hourly cost of vessel operation and the short Great Lakes shipping season. One of the two associations observed that DCR discharges are not in the industry's interest, since vessels are paid to deliver cargo, not wash it overboard. The other said this places shipping at a disadvantage when compared to rail or road transportation.

We agree that Great Lakes shipping is an important industry and that the cost implications of this rulemaking must be kept as low as possible, consistent with our interpretation of the mandate Congress gave us in the 2004 Act. The new DCR management plan requirement leaves industry free to determine, for each vessel, how best to minimize DCR without compromising a vessel's economics, safety, or other operational considerations. We are confident this can be done without delaying any vessel's operations, because we found from our own direct observations that it is existing industry practice to maintain DCR-free decks and that crew members can retrieve significant amounts of DCR from cargo tunnels while the vessel is under way for later disposal. We discuss minimization requirements more fully in connection with the comments we received on minimization.

Elimination of DCR discharges. The advocacy alliance and an individual commenter wrote in favor of eliminating DCR discharges in the Great Lakes. As we stated in the SNPRM, 77 FR 44528 at 44533, col. 1, this remains our ideal. The individual commenter remarked that “profiteers . . . sneak what they dump.” We disagree, at least insofar as the industry affected by this rulemaking is concerned, because they have openly acknowledged their discharges and because we agree with the industry that discharge of DCR is contrary to their profit motive.

The alliance said we should adopt regulations that move industry toward eventual elimination of DCR discharges. They suggested we “reconsider an alternative that incorporates the following measures: A timeline for reaching zero-discharge; periodic review of DCR best management practices followed by regulations that require implementation of such practices; and in the interim, incremental reductions in the volume of DCR discharged by vessels.” They also said the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 2012 (GLWQA) between the U.S. and Canada “directs the attention of each party to the task of developing reasonable regulations minimizing the discharge of cargo residue into the Great Lakes,” and requires “the parties to produce progress reports every three years after implementation,” which would provide a natural timeframe for us to periodically review and improve our DCR regulations.

We decline to adopt the alliance's suggestion for a timeline to incrementally reduce and eventually eliminate all DCR discharges. We lack any factual basis for establishing such a timeline, of whatever length, without triggering the direct and adverse socioeconomic impacts that justified our rejecting the imposition of a zero-discharge requirement in our interim rule; see the ROD for the interim rule's FEIS, pp. 2, 3, Sept. 23, 2008. As we stated in the SNPRM, 77 FR at 44533, col. 1, “we continue to believe, as we did when we issued the interim rule, that a `zero discharge' requirement would be more costly than necessary to protect the environment against adverse impacts, and because the adverse impacts that can be associated with DCR discharges are only minor and indirect.”

We disagree with the alliance on setting any schedule specifically for the periodic review of our DCR regulations. This is not required by the GLWQA, which discusses triennial progress reviews in the overall context of Great Lakes water quality rather than with respect to reviewing specific statutes or regulations. Also, as we stated in the SNPRM, 77 FR at 44531, col. 3, we are already “subject to statutes, executive orders, and agency policies that require the periodic reevaluation of existing regulations” including our DCR regulations. However, as we also stated in the SNPRM, 77 FR at 44533, col. 3, “[w]e expect that industry standard practices for the management of dry cargo residue will evolve” and that, as they do, each vessel will have to keep pace or risk a Coast Guard inspector's determination that its DCR management plan no longer compares adequately “with the current industry standard practices employed by the majority of vessels with comparable characteristics, cargoes, and operations.”

Minimization of DCR discharges—Decks. All three industry associations commented on our minimization proposals, in particular the “broom clean” standard for decks, and expressed concern over the costly delays in port that attaining broom cleanliness might entail (costs are addressed in the regulatory analyses section of this final rule).

One of the associations said we should set a “shovel clean” standard instead, because shovels are operationally preferable to brooms and can attain the same performance level (elimination of visible DCR, other than dust, powder, or isolated and random pieces, none of which exceeds 1 inch in diameter). We chose the term “broom clean” because of its descriptive value in conveying an image of the performance level we want vessels to achieve. This final rule does not prescribe the actual tools or procedures by which a vessel achieves it; that information will be set out in the vessel's DCR management plan.

One association pointed out that “the goal of this provision is standard practice. Spilled cargo is shoveled back into the hold to the degree possible.” We agree that this is standard practice because usually it serves the carrier's economic interest. This association also mentioned conditions under which it could be difficult or impossible to attain broom cleanliness without unacceptably long and expensive delays in port. We agree that in bad or very cold weather, or because of operational conditions, it may be more difficult than usual to attain broom cleanliness. As the association observed, however, we acknowledged in the SNPRM that cargo is loaded and discharged in different environments: “[w]e assume . . . an Able Body Seaman (AB) would be tasked with maintaining the broom clean standard . . . during loading and unloading operations, to the best of the AB's ability under current vessel conditions,” 77 FR at 44536, col. 1. The association continued by granting “that it would be difficult to define `the best of an individual's ability under varying vessel conditions,' ” but expressed the hope that “Coast Guard inspectors will agree that what is possible on a summer day is unachievable with snow falling and temperatures below freezing.” We agree. We have tried to design a reasonable requirement that can be executed by people of varying physical capabilities under widely varying conditions, in what is fundamentally an industrial setting. We have also tried to design a regulation that can be easily and fairly enforced by our inspectors without the use of scales or micrometers. As stated in the regulatory definition of “broom clean” adopted by this final rule, 33 CFR 151.66(b)(2), what we want to see on a vessel's deck is evidence that “care has been taken to prevent or eliminate” deck DCR. We understand and expect that the results of that care will vary, but we expect that the results will indicate that the vessel's DCR management plan has been written and carried out to obtain the best DCR minimization results across the full range of variables that affect the vessel.

A second association said that maintaining the broom clean standard “is likely to cause vessel delays as compliance with hours-of-rest regulations would prevent critical crew members from participating in departure or navigation tasks.” The association provided no data to show that the interaction of our broom clean requirement with work hour laws will necessarily lead to any appreciable interference with critical crew duties. We know of no reason to assume this will happen, and once again we emphasize that it is up to each vessel to determine, for inclusion in its DCR management plan, what arrangements it chooses to make to comply with our DCR regulations.

This second association also said that “[c]onsidering variability in weather conditions and the requirement to vacate docks as soon as possible for commercial and trade reasons . . . the requirement [should] be modified to allow for broom cleaning operations, if not complete before departure, to continue as soon as work related to departure is completed, or at sunrise the next morning should the vessel depart at night.” As stated in our response to the first association, we understand that a vessel's ability to attain broom cleanliness will vary according to conditions. However, were we to make the change this association suggests, vessels would have little guidance for distinguishing when in-port compliance is essential from when it can be deferred until the vessel is in transit on the Great Lakes. Since the goal of our final rule is to minimize DCR discharges into the Great Lakes, we think this would undermine the purpose of the broom clean requirement, and we therefore, decline to make the suggested change.

Minimization of DCR discharges—Tunnels. One industry association and the advocacy alliance commented on DCR minimization with respect to vessel tunnels.

The association referred to the safety hazard that can be posed by the accumulation of significant amounts of water in tunnels, and said we should therefore, make it clear that nothing in our minimization requirement or other parts of our DCR regulation “is intended to preclude the master or person-in-charge (PIC) from taking or executing any decision which, in his/her professional judgment, is necessary to maintain the safety of the crew and vessel.” We decline to add the suggested language. We believe that the vessel-specific DCR management plan our rule requires is a more direct and effective way to address the safety concerns posed by the accumulation of excess water in vessel tunnels.

In an apparent reference to our statement in the SNPRM, 77 FR at 44532, col. 3, that “[w]ithin tunnels, large pieces of DCR that remain after unloading should be easy to recover. . . and to place on the conveyor belt with the rest of the cargo during the vessel's next unloading,” the association said that opportunities to do this are “somewhat limited and vary significantly from vessel to vessel.” Therefore, the “current practice of sumping [sump pumping] tunnel DCR will have to continue.” We agree that sump pumping is often necessary and our final rule does not preclude that pumping.

The alliance parenthetically urged us to consider whether the Clean Water Act applies to sump pump discharge of DCR-laden effluent. We take no position on that question, as it is outside the scope of this final rule.

The alliance also said that we should prohibit offshore sump pumping so that vessels can discharge it only at certified shoreside garbage reception facilities. There are two reasons a vessel pumps sump while in transit. One is economy; it is cheaper for the vessel to pump while it is in transit than to spend time in port doing so. However, the second reason is operational—to preserve the vessel's stability and safety in transit. We agree with the association that offshore pumping of “DCR-laden effluent” for reasons of economy alone would not be consistent with the discharge minimization we will require, but we disagree that offshore pumping can be prohibited altogether because that could interfere with vessel safety. We expect that a vessel's DCR management plan will describe under what conditions offshore pumping may take place, and what measures the vessel takes to minimize the volume of DCR discharged with the pumped effluent.

DCR management plans. Two industry associations commented on the vessel-specific DCR management plan requirement. Both said that industry has already put in place some sort of current fleet-wide DCR management policies and plans, and one association said that because of this, regulations for written vessel-specific plans are not needed and would only create unnecessary paperwork. The other association agreed with us that “there are instances when a vessel-specific plan is necessary,” but said “there is so much commonality in terms of general vessel layout, cargo hold figurations and unloading systems” that a single DCR management plan will likely work for all its members.

We believe the additional regulatory cost of documenting policies and practices that already exist in some form will be minimal, will be of benefit to vessel crews in complying with our DCR regulations, and will provide Coast Guard inspectors with an important means of ensuring compliance. The cost of documentation should be further minimized by the “commonality” one association referred to, and we agree some common documentation for similar vessels, cargoes, or operations should be possible. However, the same association also cited many reasons why certain minimization measures will have drawbacks for particular vessels carrying particular cargoes under particular conditions. For that reason, we will require each vessel to have a plan that specifically describes how DCR will be minimized in light of those particularities.

One of the associations said we should specify that a recognized certified management system that accounts for DCR management procedures is acceptable so long as it complies with the version of 33 CFR 151.66(b)(5) promulgated by this final rule. We acknowledge that such a system may provide a useful basis for the required vessel-specific DCR management plan, but we decline the association's suggestion, and we caution that “turnkey” use of a recognized certified management system's standards, without specific adaptations made for the specific vessel, may not be enough to meet the section 151.66(b)(5) requirements.

Shoreside facilities. All three industry associations and the advocacy alliance criticized our focusing on vessels even though, as we stated in the SNPRM (77 FR at 44533, col. 2), “shoreside cargo loading and unloading facilities undoubtedly play a role in creating, or limiting the creation of, the shipboard DCR that is eventually discharged into the Great Lakes.”

One of the industry associations correctly pointed out that the Coast Guard has some shoreside regulatory authority, for example under the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002. However, whether or not we have legal authority to regulate shoreside facilities in connection with DCR, as a practical matter our marine inspectors lack the resources or training to regulate the relations between vessels and a variety of shoreside facilities.

As one industry association said, industry members also feel they lack “the expertise, time, or authority to implement practices or install equipment on docks.” One of the other associations also made this point. We agree with the first association that “there is little contractual or formal interface between carriers and docks,” that shippers rather than carriers decide where cargo will be shipped and pay shoreside facilities, and that “[d]ocks and vessels are distinct and separate links in the supply chain.” However, they are both components of the same supply chain and are, therefore, interdependent on the smooth and economical operation of that chain. In light of the frequent communication between vessel and dock crews that the association acknowledged, it is reasonable to expect the vessel-specific DCR management plan to outline how those communications will be managed to maximize coordination with shoreside facilities and minimize DCR.

The advocacy alliance said that because we have “made arrangements to consider and issue certificates to reception facilities that meet other aspects” of MARPOL Annex V requirements, we “cannot credibly claim” that we are “not suited to do so as to garbage and DCR.” The Coast Guard makes no such claim. As the alliance goes on to say, we certify garbage reception facilities under 33 CFR part 158 subpart D. If a vessel pumps tunnel sump water at a shoreside garbage reception facility, it must be certified under that subpart.

Enforcement. Two industry associations and one individual commented on how the Coast Guard will enforce this final rule. The associations commented that Coast Guard requirements for DCR discharges are unique to the Great Lakes “and it will be important that inspectors transferred to the Lakes are familiarized with the practice and what constitutes compliance with the final rule before they begin their new duties.” One of the associations also favorably mentioned, in this context, the use of photographs in our DEIS to illustrate shipboard conditions. We agree. Coast Guard inspectors routinely receive training to familiarize them with local conditions and practices. Training often includes, but is not limited to, the use of photographs like those in the DEIS.

The individual commenter asked how we plan to enforce compliance, specifically what happens to the vessel if it does not keep a DCR management plan. The commenter suggested we include more detail about “the implementation of inspections and what penalties the vessels will incur if they do not comply.” Coast Guard inspections are carried out in accordance with detailed protocols contained in our Marine Safety Manual ( http://www.uscg.mil/directives/cim/16000-16999/CIM_16000_7A.pdf ), which need not be duplicated in our regulations. Those protocols will likely be supplemented with additional guidance to inspectors who will enforce our regulations on the Great Lakes. However, as adopted by this final rule, 33 CFR 151.66(b)(6) generally lists the criteria inspectors will apply in determining the adequacy of a vessel's DCR management plan—how closely the vessel has kept up with best practices, how well trained the crew is in operations described in the plan, whether equipment described in the plan is in good working order, and how the crew conforms to plan standards in performing actual loading and unloading operations. Violations of our DCR regulations are subject to the criminal and civil penalties described in 33 CFR 151.04 and could include seizure of a vessel found to be in violation.

Limestone and clean stone. The advocacy alliance and one industry association commented on the SNPRM's proposals for new restrictions on discharges of limestone or clean stone DCR within 3 miles of shore. The alliance said they see the new restrictions “as a major improvement to the interim rule.” The association said the new restrictions will impede some operations, “specifically in situations where the vessel must unload a cargo of stone, then load a different cargo in the same port or at a nearby port.” The association said these restrictions are unnecessary because limestone or clean stone DCR discharges do not deposit an appreciable quantity of stone over the lake bed, and therefore “it is difficult to believe that it would create a mussel breeding ground.”

We disagree that limestone and clean stone discharges do not deposit an appreciable quantity of stone over the lake bed. Observations conducted for this final rule's FEIS revealed that under current regulations, the discharge of limestone and clean stone DCR can occur while vessels are stationary at loading and unloading docks. According to the FEIS, multiple discharges of stone at port and in near shore areas could create as much as one inch per year of DCR accumulation on the lake floor, which would completely alter the existing sediment's physical structure and potentially affect the ecosystems at the bottom of the lake. Thus, in port and near shore areas, stone DCR deposition could have a significant, long-term, and cumulative impact on sediment structure. Furthermore, in port and near shore areas, limestone and clean stone discharges could create an optimum habitat for invasive mussels. In these shallow waters, which the mussels prefer, depositing bottom substrate that is stone over the native soft bottom sediments creates an optimum anchoring medium for the invasive mussels. In summary, all of the predicted “significant” environmental impacts delineated in our FEIS are the result of limestone and clean stone DCR discharge in port and near shore areas. For this reason, the final rule generally prohibits limestone and clean stone DCR discharges within 3 miles of shore.

Specific regulatory language. One industry association objected to the SNPRM's proposed wording of 33 CFR 151.66(b)(5)(viii). The association said that requiring a vessel's DCR management plan to include the “procedures used and the vessel's operating conditions to be maintained during any unavoidable discharge of bulk dry cargo residue into the Great Lakes” implies that DCR discharge is prohibited, “when in fact the expectation of the rule is that the discharge” need only be minimized. Our final rule retains the SNPRM's language. As other industry associations have commented persuasively, industry has a profit motive not to discharge DCR. Our expectation, therefore, is that it would be illogical, as well as illegal, for vessels to discharge DCR except when doing so is operationally “unavoidable.”

The context in which we developed this rule. We stated in the interim rule that, before taking final action in this rulemaking, we would “determine if, in the long term, the optimal balancing of commercial and environmental interests requires the mandatory use of DCR control measures, the adjustment of the geographical boundaries within which those discharges are currently allowed, or other regulatory changes.” 73 FR at 56495, col. 2.

To help us achieve that long-term balance, we analyzed the DCR discharge records reported to us in accordance with the interim rule. This helped us describe and quantify DCR discharges, and to determine what control measures were common and effective in controlling DCR discharges. This information is available in the appendices to this final rule's FEIS. We also observed Great Lakes dry cargo operations firsthand. During the 2009 and 2010 shipping seasons, we visited vessels and facilities in the region, and observed cargo loading and unloading and DCR discharge operations. This enabled us to gather DCR data using a known consistent set of metrics and a process that was completely independent of any used by vessel owners or operators to complete and submit their DCR discharge reports.

From this analysis and observation, we drew the following conclusions:

There is significant variation in the amount of DCR that vessels discharge; a finding that is supported by results reported by the regulated industry. However, most vessels appear to be minimizing the volume of DCR they discharge. They treat their cargo as a commodity to be conserved and not wasted. They deal with shoreside facilities that take the same practical view. These vessels and facilities use best practices to prevent cargo spillage in the first place, and to clean it up when it occurs. Most best practices are simple, intuitive, and cost little: For example, lining conveyor belts with fabric skirts, communicating with the shoreside facility to shut down loading chutes while moving from one hold to the next, and using brooms and shovels to clean up DCR and return it to the hold before the hold is sealed.

Deck spillage is a relatively minor source of DCR, and easily addressed through simple measures. By far, the greater source of DCR is from cargo hold spillage into vessel tunnels. Tunnel spillage occurs predominantly during cargo unloading.

Within tunnels, large pieces of DCR that remain after unloading should be easy to recover while the vessel is underway, and to place on the conveyor belt with the rest of the cargo during the vessel's next unloading. Dust and small particles, however, inevitably make their way into the vessel's sump water. The sump must be pumped periodically, to preserve the vessel's trim and stability. Sump pumping can take several hours. If performed shoreside, under some conditions the pumping could delay the vessel, increasing its operating costs and making it more economically rational to perform sump pumping while the vessel is underway, though this would likely result in sump discharges being the main contributor to DCR discharges in the Great Lakes.

Our final rule makes the following four general changes to the current interim rule, all of which are supported by the final rule's FEIS, and otherwise finalizes the interim rule. The rule also revises the definitions of “commercial vessel” and “mile” to provide greater clarity.

First, we require the volume of DCR discharges to be minimized. Except for a new, objectively verifiable, “broom clean” standard applying to decks, discharge minimization will be achieved through methods of the vessel owner or operator's choice. “Broom clean” is defined in 33 CFR 151.66(b)(2) as a condition in which deck residues “consist only of dust, powder, or isolated and random pieces, none of which exceeds 1 inch in diameter.” “Minimization” is also defined, as the “reduction, to the greatest extent practicable, of any bulk dry cargo residue discharge from the vessel.” Reinforcing the concept of minimization, we also redefine “bulk cargo residues” to emphasize that DCR can exist “regardless of particle size.”

Second, we require discharge minimization methods to be documented in a vessel-specific DCR management plan, which is a written plan, subject to Coast Guard inspection, meeting at least the minimum criteria we describe in 33 CFR 151.66(b)(5).

Third, limestone and clean stone DCR discharges are no longer permitted within 3 miles of shore. In the Western Basin of Lake Erie, we provide an exception within the dredged navigation channel between Toledo Harbor Light and the Detroit River Light. This is the only section of the Great Lakes where known Lake carrier track lines for limestone and clean stone transport vessels do not extend more than 3 miles from land and the discharge of stone DCR in the dredged channel would not adversely affect native sediments or underwater life.

Fourth, one year after the remainder of the final rule takes effect, we will remove the requirements of 33 CFR 151.66(c) to record cargo loading and unloading operations and DCR discharge data on a Coast Guard form and to submit copies of those forms to us once each quarter.

Minimization and the DCR management plan. The final rule requires U.S. and foreign carriers conducting bulk dry cargo operations on the Great Lakes to minimize the amount of cargo residue discharged into the Great Lakes. Except for the new broom clean standard, our focus will be on discharge minimization, not on minimizing DCR. Nor will we require vessels to eliminate DCR discharges because we continue to believe, as we did when we issued the interim rule, that a “zero discharge” requirement would be more costly than necessary to protect the environment against adverse impacts, and because the adverse impacts that can be associated with DCR discharges are only minor and indirect. Nevertheless, the elimination of DCR discharges remains the ideal outcome, and we expect vessels to come as close to that ideal as practicable, given current industry standard practices for vessels of “comparable characteristics, cargoes, and operations”—a term we define in 33 CFR 151.66(b)(2) as meaning “similar vessel design, size, age, crew complement, cargoes, operational routes, deck and hold configuration, and fixed cargo transfer equipment configuration.”

Discharge minimization includes keeping the vessel's deck in broom clean condition. All vessels should be able to achieve the broom clean standard on deck, by sweeping spilled cargo back into holds before they are sealed, if not by some other method. However, as noted, deck DCR only accounts for a relatively small proportion of overall DCR discharges. For the more significant tunnel sump discharges, it is not possible for us to define a similar standard that could be applied to all vessels. We believe that the degree of minimization that will be practicable for those discharges will depend on the variables of a vessel's characteristics, cargoes, and operations, and on the technology or procedures used to compensate for those variables.

Rather than mandating the use of specific procedures or technologies that may be ineffective or impracticable for some vessels, each vessel's owner or operator will select the method or methods best suited for minimizing that vessel's DCR discharges. We believe that the great majority of vessels affected by the final rule are already effectively minimizing those discharges. However, by making minimization a regulatory requirement, we level the playing field to ensure that all affected vessels engage in responsible discharge minimization practices.

The requirement for each vessel to carry its own vessel-specific DCR management plan on board, and to have that plan available for inspection, is central to the enforceability of a discharge minimization requirement.

Coast Guard inspectors will enforce discharge minimization by making sure that the vessel has a DCR management plan on board, that the plan is complete and addresses all required items, and that the master or PIC ensures that the vessel and its crew operate according to the plan. The Coast Guard can infer the vessel's failure to minimize discharges from evidence such as:

• A missing plan;

• A plan that fails to address obvious DCR situations on the vessel that raise the probability of an eventual DCR discharge, such as obvious DCR buildup in the vessel's tunnels;

• Discharge minimization equipment that is called for in the plan but is not present on the vessel or is not maintained or operating properly; or

• A crewmember's inability to perform a discharge-minimization task for which the plan makes the crewmember responsible.

To ensure that the vessel's owner and operator exercise due diligence in writing the management plan, we require the plan to describe:

• The equipment and procedures the vessel uses to minimize cargo spillage during loading and unloading;

• The equipment and procedures the vessel uses to recover spilled cargo and place it in holds or on unloading conveyances;

• How the owner or operator ensures crew familiarity with management plan procedures;

• Who has onboard responsibility for the vessel's discharge minimization procedures;

• What arrangements, if any, the vessel has with specific ports or cargo terminals for unloading and disposing of the vessel's DCR ashore; and

• How unavoidable DCR discharges will be conducted.

Our regulatory focus has been, and remains, on the vessels that carry bulk dry cargo—even though shoreside cargo loading and unloading facilities undoubtedly play a role in creating, or limiting the creation of, the shipboard DCR that is eventually discharged into the Great Lakes. Focusing on vessels makes sense because Coast Guard's inspectors are specifically trained and equipped to inspect vessels and not shoreside facilities. We expect each vessel's DCR management plan to describe how the vessel works with shoreside facilities to facilitate the vessel's compliance with the requirements of 33 CFR 151.66.

Another important aspect of the management plan requirement is that the plan must be revised whenever there is a substantive change to the procedures or to the equipment the vessel uses to manage dry cargo residues. Although regular or periodic revisions of the management plan are not required under this rule, vessel owners must maintain the plan in a manner that assures it accurately reflects the current procedures, practices, and technology employed in managing DCR on the vessel.

We expect that industry standard practices for the management of dry cargo residue will evolve as existing dry cargo conveyance technologies are supplanted by those that are more efficient, effective, and reliable. “Industry standard practices” are specifically defined in 33 CFR 151.66(b)(2) and include practices for installation, maintenance, operation, training, and supervision relating to bulk dry cargo transfer and DCR control measures. A primary premise of this rule is that a vessel owner or operator will employ dry cargo residue management practices that are on par with the current industry standard for vessels of comparable characteristics, cargoes, and operations. “Comparable characteristics, cargoes, and operations” is defined in 33 CFR 151.66(b)(2) as meaning “similar vessel design, size, age, crew complement, cargoes, operational routes, deck and hold configuration, and fixed cargo transfer equipment configuration.” A vessel's compliance with this requirement of the rule will be determined in part by how well the vessel's DCR management practices, as outlined in its management plan, compare with the current industry standard practices employed by the majority of vessels with comparable characteristics, cargoes, and operations. If, for example, a vessel's plan continues to rely on technology or procedures that have been supplanted by more recent, affordable, and easily implemented industry standard practices, a Coast Guard inspector can consider this as evidence of failure to maintain the plan, failure to minimize DCR discharges, or both.

Limestone and clean stone. While we retain the interim rule's approach toward the discharge of DCR in general, we are tightening restrictions on limestone and clean stone DCR discharges. For most substances, DCR discharges have been and remain subject to several geographic limitations, including a flat prohibition on discharges within a certain distance from shore and in special protected areas. For limestone and clean stone, however, the interim rule continued the prior policy, which allowed DCR from limestone and clean stone to be discharged close to shore, except where the nearest shore is in a special protected area or where the discharge would have an “apparent impact” on wetlands, fish spawning areas, or potable water intakes. We believe this standard is too subjective and that it could be difficult for vessel crews to determine whether or not a stone DCR discharge will have an apparent impact on the local environment. Therefore, we are making limestone and clean stone DCR discharges subject to the same 3-mile restriction we impose on other DCR discharges. Our 2009 and 2010 field research and the interim rule's FEIS indicated that limestone and clean stone vessels already avoid DCR discharges within 3 miles of shore because of near-shore operational hazards. Thus, those vessels should not incur any additional costs from the extension of the exclusion zone. (We will preserve the existing exception for a limited portion of Lake Erie's Western Basin because some vessels carrying limestone or clean stone never leave that area, and if such a vessel wanted to discharge DCR, it could be unusually and adversely affected by a complete prohibition on DCR discharges in the area.) This change ensures that near-shore wetlands, fish spawning areas, and potable water intakes within the entire Great Lakes ecosystem are protected from DCR discharges, and it simplifies understanding and compliance with the rule for the regulated industry. It should also mitigate an environmental impact identified in the interim rule's FEIS; that is, possible changes in the physical structure of the lake bottom sediment, which may cause a less than 10 percent increase in zebra and quagga mussels' attachment rates.

Recordkeeping and reporting. We are retaining the interim rule's requirement, in 33 CFR 151.66(c), for vessels to keep detailed records of their bulk dry cargo loading and unloading operations and their DCR discharges. However, effective February 28, 2015 we will relax the interim rule's requirement in section 151.66(c)(3)(iv), for these records to be kept on Coast Guard Form CG-33, and for copies of the records to be submitted to the Coast Guard on a quarterly basis. Our SNPRM, 77 FR at 44531, col. 1, stated that “[w]e lack sufficient information to remove the reporting requirement at this time.” Form CG-33 greatly facilitated our research in preparation for issuing this final rule, but we have since concluded that while reporting on Form CG-33 may have value in monitoring the first year of operation under the final rule, after that time it will no longer be necessary to use Form CG-33, and no longer necessary to submit reports. This should reduce industry's recordkeeping and reporting burden. We have also concluded that we have good cause to relieve this burden without additional public notice or opportunity to comment, because after the first year of operation under the final rule it will be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest, within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 553, to impose that burden.

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

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

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 as supplemented by E.O. 13563 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of E.O. 12866. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed it under E.O. 12866. Nonetheless, we developed an analysis of the costs and benefits of the rule to ascertain its probable impacts on industry. A final Regulatory Assessment follows:

We received public comments related to this rulemaking, which are summarized in part IV of this preamble. There was one comment addressing the possible costs incurred by vessels due to port delays in order to perform the broom clean standard. As mentioned in part IV, we observed the loading and unloading practices of vessels operating on the Great Lakes, and found their practice is to maintain a clear deck as loading or unloading operations are taking place. Therefore, we do not anticipate vessels having to be burdened with an additional $2,000 (as stated by the commenter) to perform broom cleaning at dockside.

The final rule will require vessels to minimize their DCR discharges, to document their DCR minimization methods, and to observe new restrictions on limestone and clean stone DCR discharges.

Table 1 compares components of the interim rule (the baseline used for this rulemaking) and the final rule. It summarizes any changes in the component that will be in effect in this final rule.

The final rule has costs associated with having vessel owners and operators develop and maintain a management plan that describes the specific measures the vessel employs to ensure the minimization of bulk DCR discharges in the waters of the Great Lakes. The final rule will not impose any additional capital expenditures on the U.S. bulk dry cargo fleet operating exclusively on the Great Lakes, since we believe that vessels will use equipment already available on board their vessels to comply with this rule (for further information on specific measures currently being used, see FEIS).

We estimated the annualized costs of the final rule for the U.S. fleet to range from $17,500 to $56,298 (with a per vessel average cost of $671), and the annualized costs to the foreign fleet to range from $13,922 to $48,697 (with a per-vessel average cost of $368). All costs are estimated using a 7 percent discount rate. The following table summarizes the affected population of vessels, costs, and benefits of the rule. We also estimated an annualized cost saving of $11,595 for the U.S. fleet and $8,442 for the foreign fleet; both costs are reported at 7 percent discount.

The final rule will require all vessels loading or unloading bulk dry cargo at ports within the U.S. waters of the Great Lakes, and each U.S. bulk dry cargo vessel operating anywhere on the Great Lakes, to have a management plan on board and available for Coast Guard inspection that describes the specific measures the vessel employs to minimize DCR discharges. Foreign vessels greater than 400 GT can meet the management plan requirement under this final rule because they are required to meet the similar waste management plan requirement in Annex V of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78). However, since Annex V of MARPOL 73/78 does not cover all of the requirements in 33 CFR 151.66(b)(4), foreign vessels would be required to address any additional management plan requirements under this final rule.

We estimate that the final rule will affect 14 entities that currently manage the 55 U.S. dry bulk carrier vessels, and 85 foreign dry bulk carrier vessels (70 Canadian and 15 non-Canadian) operating within U.S. jurisdictional waters of the Great Lakes in any given year. We anticipate that the controlling entities of U.S. vessels would write the management plans. We assume that a management plan for a foreign vessel operating in the U.S. waters of the Great Lakes would be written by the vessel master.

We estimate the affected population of foreign dry bulk carriers to be 85 vessels based on the data obtained from reporting requirements established by the 2009 interim rule. We originally estimated the foreign vessel population to be 219 vessels for the 2008 NPRM and the 2009 interim rule. Our revised estimate of the foreign vessel population is based on recent data on foreign vessel dry cargo operations that was not available for the NPRM or the interim rule publications.

To maintain consistency with the cost methodology used in the interim rule, we continue to use Coast Guard reimbursable standard rates found in COMMANDANT INSTRUCTION 7310.1M (“COMDTINST”) to analyze the changes in wages for this rulemaking. 1 We have verified that the wages found in the COMDTINST are comparable to the loaded wages found in the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Therefore, that comparison between the interim rule and the final rule is straightforward.

Table 3 shows estimated costs for developing the management plan required by 33 CFR 151.66(b)(4) and for having a hard copy of the plan on board and available for Coast Guard inspection.

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone listed in 33 CFR 165.151 on the specified date and time as indicated in the Table below. If the event is delayed by inclement weather, the regulation will be enforced on the rain date indicated in the Table below. These regulations were published in the Federal Register on May 24, 2013 (78 FR 31402).

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.151, the fireworks display listed above is established as a safety zone. During the enforcement period, persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, mooring, or anchoring within the safety zone unless they receive permission from the COTP or designated representative.

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

Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 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 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 8 1/2 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 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 is issuing this temporary interim rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is contrary to public interest to delay the effective date of this rule. Delaying the effective date by first publishing an NPRM would be contrary to the safety zone's intended objectives since immediate action is necessary to protect persons and vessels against the hazards associated with ice on navigable waters. Such hazards include vessels becoming beset or dragged off course, sinking or grounding, and creating hazards to navigation.

For similar reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Due to the need for immediate action, the restriction of vessel traffic is necessary to protect life, property and the environment. Therefore, a 30-day notice is impracticable. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the safety zone's intended objectives of protecting persons and vessels from becoming beset or dragged off course, sinking or grounding, and creating hazards to navigation.

During an average or severe winter, frozen waterways present numerous hazards to vessels. Ice in a waterway may hamper a vessel's ability to maneuver, and could cause visual aids to navigation to be submerged, destroyed or moved off station. Ice abrasions and ice pressure could also compromise a vessel's watertight integrity, and non-steel hulled vessels would be exposed to a greater risk of hull breach.

When ice conditions develop to a point where vessel operations become unsafe, it becomes necessary to impose operating restrictions to ensure the safe navigation of vessels. A safety zone is a tool available to the Captain of the Port (COTP) to restrict and manage vessel movement when hazardous conditions exist. The COTP Baltimore is establishing a safety zone within all navigable waters of the COTP Baltimore Zone. This safety zone will restrict certain vessels meeting certain conditions specified from entering the navigable waters included within the COTP Baltimore Zone. Those vessels prohibited from entering the safety zone will be specified via broadcast notice to mariners and marine safety information bulletins.

Ice generally begins to form in the Upper Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, including the C & D Canal, in late December or early January. During an average or severe winter, ice in navigable waters can become a serious problem, requiring the use of federal, state and private ice breaking resources. The Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore will use his COTP authority to promote vessel safety in ice-congested waters and the continuation of waterborne commerce throughout the cold weather months.

Ice fields in the Upper Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries move with prevailing winds and currents. Heavy ice buildups can occur in the C & D Canal, from Town Point Wharf to Reedy Point. Other areas that are commonly affected by high volumes of ice are: The Elk River, Susquehanna River, Patapsco River, Nanticoke River, Wicomico River, Tangier Sound, Pocomoke River and Sound, and the Potomac River. Once ice buildup begins it can affect the transit of large ocean-going vessels. This regulation is intended to mitigate the threat ice in the COTP Baltimore Zone poses to the maritime public.

A safety zone is being established encompassing the COTP Baltimore Zone, as described in 33 CFR 3.25-15. The COTP Baltimore anticipates only having to enforce certain parts of the regulated area at certain times. The purpose of this regulation is to promote maritime safety and to protect mariners transiting the area from the potential hazards due to ice conditions that become a threat to navigation. The COTP Baltimore will notify the maritime community, via marine broadcasts, of the location and thickness of the ice as well as the ability of vessels to transit through the safety zone depending on the prevailing ice conditions. Prevailing ice conditions will be categorized as Condition One, Condition Two, or Condition Three.

Ice Condition One is an emergency condition in which ice has largely covered the regulated area. Under these conditions, convoys may be required and restrictions based on shaft horsepower and a vessel's planned transit may be imposed by the COTP on certain vessels seeking to enter the safety zone.

Ice Condition Two is an alert condition in which at least 2 inches of ice begins to form in the regulated area. The COTP Baltimore may impose restrictions, including but not limited to, those based on shaft horsepower and hull type restrictions for certain vessels seeking to enter the safety zone.

Ice Condition Three is a readiness condition in which weather conditions are favorable for the formation of ice in the regulated area. Daily reports for the Coast Guard Stations and commercial vessels are monitored, and no limitations for vessels seeking to enter the zone based on vessel traffic, hull type or shaft horsepower are anticipated.

This rule has been enforced with actual notice since January 7, 2014 and it will be enforced until April 15, 2014, unless sooner terminated by the COTP Baltimore.

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

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. Although this regulation could hinder or prevent traffic from transiting the COTP Baltimore Zone, the effect of this regulation will not be significant because there is little vessel traffic associated with recreational boating and commercial fishing during the effective period.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to operate, transit or anchor in the regulated area, from January 7, 2014 until April 15, 2014. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities due to a lack of seasonal vessel traffic associated with recreational boating and commercial fishing during the effective period. Although the safety zone will apply to the entire COTP Baltimore Zone, the Captain of the Port Baltimore anticipates only having to enforce certain parts of the regulated area at certain times. Traffic will be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the COTP Baltimore. Also, the COTP Baltimore will notify the maritime community, via marine broadcasts, of the location and thickness of the ice, as well as the ability of vessels to transit through the safety zone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As published on April 18, 2013 (78 FR 23137), the final rule concerning Implementation of Full-Service Intelligent Mail Requirements for Automation Prices misidentified one affected provision of the Domestic Mail Manual. Specifically, revisions to DMM 503.14.0, concerning Intelligent Mail Barcode Tracing, were erroneously numbered as revisions to DMM 503.15.0, which concerns Money Orders. In order to minimize the possibility of confusion, this error needs to be corrected.

Throughout this document, whenever “we” “us” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.

This action covers four separate submittals by the State of Texas. These include the State's repeal of its TCFF LEV rules (May 15, 2006); repeal of the TCFF MERC rules, and TCM substitution rule (July 25, 2007); new Texas Clean Fleet (TCF) rules (March 25, 2010); and revisions to the new TCF rules (April 13, 2012). These revisions address Title 30 of the Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 114 (denoted as 30 TAC 114), which provides for Control of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles in Texas.

Repeal of the TCFF Low-Emission Vehicle Rules. Texas adopted LEV fleet rules to meet, in part, the federal Clean Fuel Fleet program (CFFP) requirements. The federal CFFP requirement is contained in the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended November 15, 1990. The CAA requires certain States to adopt and submit to EPA SIP revisions containing a CFFP for nonattainment areas with 1980 populations greater than 250,000 that are classified as serious or worse for ozone, or which have a design value of at least 16.0 ppm for carbon monoxide (CO). Section 182(c)(4) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7511a(c)(4), allows States to opt-out of the federal CFFP by submitting, for EPA approval, a SIP revision consisting of a substitute program resulting in as much or greater long term emissions reductions in ozone-producing and toxic air emissions as the federal CFFP. In Texas, four 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas were classified as serious and above and were required to implement a CFFP: the Houston/Galveston/Brazoria Severe 1-hour ozone nonattainment area; the Dallas/Fort Worth Serious 1-hour ozone nonattainment area; the El Paso Serious 1-hour ozone nonattainment area; and the Beaumont/Port Arthur Serious area that has been found to meet the 1-hour ozone standard and redesignated to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard  1 .

For the Houston, Dallas, and El Paso areas, Texas complied with the federal CFFP requirement by opting to implement a substitute program. We approved a substitute program for these three areas as part of the Texas SIP on February 7, 2001 (66 FR 9203). The SIP's substitute program covers transit, local government and private fleets. It requires transit fleets to ensure that at least 50% of their fleet vehicles are certified to meet or exceed the LEV standards. In addition, local government and private fleets after September 1, 1998, have to ensure that certain percentages of their vehicle purchases be certified by EPA as LEVs. To make up the shortfall in emissions, the SIP relies upon excess emission reductions from state mandated reductions of VOC from transfer operations at gasoline terminals in nonattainment areas, and NO X reductions from electric generating facilities. In this submittal, Texas has submitted its repeal of the LEV fleet portion of the TCFF program accompanied by an equivalency demonstration. The remaining substitute program emission reductions remain in place in state law and in the Texas SIP.

Motor Vehicle Emission Reduction Credit Rules, and Transportation Control Measures Substitution Rules. The July 25, 2007 submittal contains revisions to 30 TAC 114: Control of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles in three specific areas: Repeal of the TCM substitution program; repeal of the MERC program portion of the TCFF program and associated fund and definitions; and repeal of the Light-duty Motor Vehicle Purchase or Lease Incentive Program Vehicle Emissions Information Brochure requirement for manufacturers rule (§ 114.618). The State of Texas accidentally submitted this brochure repeal since this particular Program is not part of the SIP; consequently, we are returning it to the State. 2

Repeal of the TCM substitution program. Regulations to implement the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (January 24, 2008, 73 FR 4420) added a provision to the CAA to allow states to substitute or add TCMs into approved SIPs without the standard SIP revision process. Thus, states are no longer required to include a TCM substitution mechanism in their SIPs. The submitted revision includes the repeal of 30 TAC 114.270(f): The TCM substitution program.

Repeal of the TCFF MERC program. The TCFF MERC program was approved into the SIP as an element of the TCFF program on February 7, 2001 (66 FR 9203). The TCFF MERC program is unrelated and separate from the Mobile Emission Reduction Credit Generation and Certification program found in 30 TAC 101.304 which regulates MERCs that are generated under the state's banking and trading program.

In 2005, the Texas Legislature enacted Senate Bill (SB) 1032, which repealed the TCFF program but for the VOC rules governing transfer operations at gasoline terminals and the NO X rules governing electric generating facilities. With the repeal of the TCFF program, the TCFF MERC program, the TCFF MERC fund, and associated definitions are no longer relevant. These repealed rules are found in the SIP rules at Chapter 114, Subchapter A—Definitions, and Subchapter F—Vehicle Retirement and Mobile Emission Reduction Credits; Division 1: Mobile Emission Reduction Credits.

New Texas Clean Fleet (TCF) Rules and Revisions. On March 25, 2010, the TCEQ submitted revisions to 30 TAC 114: Control of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles, establishing a new, voluntary state grant program called the Texas Clean Fleet (TCF) Program. The revisions implement SB 1759, adopted by the 81st Legislature (2009, Regular Session) which created the TCF program. This program is designed to encourage eligible entities to replace on-road diesel-powered vehicles with vehicles powered by fuels other than gasoline or diesel. The TCF Program provides incentives to owners of large fleets in Texas to replace on-road diesel-powered vehicles with alternative fuel vehicles including hybrids. The TCF is a program under the umbrella of the Texas Emission Reduction Plan (TERP), which provides financial incentives to eligible individuals, businesses or local governments to reduce emissions from polluting vehicles and equipment.

The April 13, 2012 submittal makes revisions to the TCF program, including, but not limited to, the eligibility criteria and disposition of the replaced vehicles.

For a detailed analysis of these submittals, see the Technical Support Document that accompanies this action. The TSD may be accessed online at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2006-0885.

The LEV rules portion of the TCFF program was repealed by the state and in the submittal requesting removal of these LEV rules from the SIP, the State demonstrates federal emission standards now are more stringent than the emission standards for low emission vehicles (LEV) established under the TCFF program. We can approve the removal of the TCFF program's associated repealed LEV rules from the Texas SIP because the submitted equivalency demonstration shows the new Tier 2 and 2007 heavy-duty diesel vehicles and engines meet or exceed the LEV requirement. See the TSD for further technical information about the equivalency demonstration. In addition, the State continues to meet the CAA requirement for a CFF program by retaining the emission reductions from stationary sources for NO X and VOCs from the substitute program that more than cover all emission requirements for the entire TCFF program. The TCFF repealed MERC program, its MERC fund, and associated definitions, which also are in the SIP, are intertwined with the SIP's TCFF Program. The part D SIPs for the Texas ozone nonattainment areas did not rely upon any emissions reductions credits from the TCFF program and its associated MERC program in the attainment demonstrations or to meet reasonable further progress. We are approving the removal of the TCFF Program's repealed LEV rules and the TCFF Program's associated repealed rules for the MERC program, fund, and definitions from the Texas SIP. The repealed rules that are removed from the SIP are 30 TAC 114.4, and 30 TAC 114.201 and 114.202.

The EPA revised the transportation conformity rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93) on January 24, 2008, to address the transportation conformity-related CAA amendments made by SAFETEA-LU (73 FR 4420). In addition to amendments to the transportation conformity provisions, the SAFETEA-LU added a provision to the CAA that allows states to substitute or add TCMs into approved SIPs without the standard SIP revision process; see section 176(c)(8) of the Act and 40 CFR 93.101. Under this Clean Air Act provision, states are no longer required to include a TCM substitution mechanism in their SIPs in order to expedite the process for making TCM substitutions. The provision also provides a streamlined process for adding TCMs to an approved SIP. EPA determined that it was not necessary to promulgate regulations in order to successfully implement the TCM substitution and additional statutory provision (73 FR 4420, 4432). See EPA's Guidance for Implementing the Clean Air Act Section 176(c)(8) Transportation Control Measure Substitution and Addition Provision. 3 We agree with the state that the change to the CAA requirements made by the SAFETEA-LU in 2008 renders a state TCM substitution program unnecessary. Therefore, we are approving the removal of the Texas repealed TCM substitution Program and its associated repealed rules from the Texas SIP. Texas now will rely solely on the federal statute for future actions. The repealed rule that is removed from the SIP is 30 TAC 114.270(f).

Because the submitted TCF program is a voluntary financial incentive program encouraging the replacement of large fleets of on-road diesel power engines with vehicles using fuels other than gasoline or diesel, to evaluate it, we used the EPA Guidance: Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs (EIP). An EIP achieves an air quality objective by providing market-based incentives or information to emission sources. Three fundamental principles apply to all approvable economic incentive programs: integrity, equity, and environmental benefit. Our analysis showed that the provisions of this new, voluntary incentive program, and the subsequent revisions, meet the three fundamental principles for an acceptable incentive program, and provide a framework for achieving emission reductions. See the TSD for the further analysis. If TCEQ includes emission reductions from this program in future attainment or RFP SIPs, EPA will evaluate the amount of reductions it achieves at that time. We are approving the TCF Program and its associated revisions as part of the Texas SIP. The rules being approved into the SIP are 30 TAC 114.650-114.658.

Pursuant to section 110 of the Act, EPA is approving four revisions to the Texas SIP that were submitted on May 15, 2006; July 25, 2007 (but omitting revision to § 114.618 which was submitted accidentally and is being returned to the state); March 25, 2010; and April 13, 2012. We evaluated the State's submittals and determined that they meet the applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110 and applicable EPA guidance. Approval of these submittals will not result in any increase in ozone concentrations. In accordance with CAA section 110(l), these revisions will not interfere with attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. EPA is approving the removal of the TCFF program's LEV and MERC rules from the Texas SIP. EPA also is approving the removal of the TCM substitution rules from the Texas SIP. Finally, EPA is approving into the Texas SIP, the new TCF program and revisions.

EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view this as a non-controversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if relevant adverse comments are received. This rule will be effective on April 1, 2014 without further notice unless we receive adverse comment by March 3, 2014. If we receive adverse comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so now. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 1, 2014. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR Part 52 is amended as follows:

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

The EPA is removing three sections from the State's air quality SIP, based on a rule change made by the State to repeal its TSP air quality standard. EPA originally regulated particulate matter (PM) measured using TSP, which is particulate up to 100 micrometers in diameter. EPA tightened the PM standards, as PM 10 and PM 2.5 in 1987 and 1997, respectively, which replaced the TSP secondary standard. Particulate matter larger than 10 micrometers generally is not inhaled into the lungs and standards based on PM 10 and PM 2.5 are found to adequately protect human health. This action removes the sections from 40 CFR part 52 that no longer have any use or legal effect because they have been superseded by subsequently approved SIP revisions.

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) has requested removal of three sections of the Wisconsin administrative code from the SIP, to align the State's air quality standards with the current NAAQS for PM. EPA has reviewed the request and finds that the three sections should be removed for the reasons set forth as follows:

Section NR 404.02(11) defines “Total Suspended Particulates”. This definition is being removed because EPA has adopted air quality standards for PM 10 and PM 2.5 , which are particulates of 10 micrometers and 2.5 micrometers, respectively. The PM 10 and PM 2.5 standards for smaller sized particles render the larger sized TSP particle standard obsolete.

The NAAQS consist of both primary standards and secondary standards. Primary NAAQS provide public health protection. Secondary NAAQS provide public welfare protection, including protection against decreased visibility and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. Section NR 404.04(3) defines the TSP secondary standard as 150 micrograms per cubic meter, maximum 24-hour average concentration, not to be exceeded more than once per year. EPA replaced the TSP secondary standard with more protective PM 10 and PM 2.5 standards in 1987 and 1997, respectively.

Section NR 484.04(3) incorporates by reference the test method for TSP. The reference method is used to determine particulate matter in the atmosphere. Because EPA replaced TSP air quality standards with PM 10 and PM 2.5 standards, the reference method is obsolete.

EPA has determined that the above-referenced sections should be removed at this time. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register , EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if relevant adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on April 1, 2014 without further notice, unless EPA receives relevant adverse comment March 3, 2014. If EPA receives relevant adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 1, 2014. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review, nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and it shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register , rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0515 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before April 1, 2014. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0515, by one of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

• Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

In the Federal Register of September 12, 2013 (78 FR 56185) (FRL-9399-7), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 2F8015) by Chemtura Corporation,199 Benson Road, Middlebury, CT 06749. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.377 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide diflubenzuron, (DFB) and its metabolites 4-chlorophenylurea (CPU) and 4-chloroaniline (PCA), in or on fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 3.0 parts per million (ppm), and citrus, oil at 32.0 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Chemtura Corporation, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

In conjunction with this rulemaking, EPA has updated the tolerance expression to be consistent with the FFDCA. See Unit IV.D. EPA is also removing the existing tolerances for grapefruit, orange, pummelo, and tangerine that are made redundant by establishment of the crop group tolerance for citrus.

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”

Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for diflubenzuron including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with diflubenzuron follows.

EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.

The acute oral, dermal and inhalation toxicity of diflubenzuron is low. It is a mild eye irritant and not a skin irritant in laboratory animals. It is negative for sensitization in the guinea pig. In subchronic and chronic feeding studies, the primary endpoint of concern was methemoglobinemia and/or sulfhemoglobinemia. These effects were evident in both sexes of mice, rats, and dogs and were produced by more than one route of administration in rats (i.e., oral, dermal and inhalation). The general consequence of methemoglobinemia and/or sulfhemoglobinemia is the impairment of the oxygen transportation capacity of the blood, which is generally known to be caused by aromatic amines in both humans and animals. Degradates of diflubenzuron with aromatic amines, CPU and PCA, are also included in the diflubenzuron non-cancer risk assessment. CPU, an analog of monuron, does not effect methemoglobin formation but does produce tumors in the liver and kidneys of male rats. The toxicity of PCA is well understood with methemoglobin formation the primary systemic effect. PCA is similar in potency to diflubenzuron on methemoglobin formation. Therefore, the non-cancer assessment will include diflubenzuron, CPU and PCA. Since the toxicity of CPU and PCA is well understood, additional toxicity studies are not required.

The toxicity data provide no indication of an increased susceptibility to rats or to rabbits from in utero or postnatal exposure to diflubenzuron. Developmental and reproduction studies in rats and rabbits indicate a very low hazard potential for adverse effects. Developmental studies were tested at the limit dose of 1,000 milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day) without apparent effects in both dams and the fetuses. The reproduction study indicated that effects in offspring occurred at doses that were higher than the doses producing effects in parents. The requirement for acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies were recently waived because there are no clear signs of neurotoxicity following subchronic or chronic dosing in multiple species in the diflubenzuron database. The toxicity profile of diflubenzuron shows that the principal toxic effects are the formation of methemoglobinemia and/or sulfhemoglobinemia in the blood. The immunotoxicity study has been reviewed and immunotoxicity was not observed above the limit dose.

The Agency concluded that diflubenzuron is not carcinogenic in humans based on lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in rats and mice. PCA, a plant metabolite of diflubenzuron, tested positive for splenic tumors in male rats and hepatocellular adenomas/carcinomas in male mice in a National Toxicology Program (NTP) study. Therefore, EPA has treated PCA as a probable human carcinogen. CPU is the major degradate found in water and is a significant metabolite in milk. CPU is structurally related to monuron ( N,N -dimethyl-CPU), a compound producing tumors of the kidney and liver in male rats. EPA has assumed CPU is a probable human carcinogen as well.

Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by diflubenzuron as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document, “Diflubenzuron: Human Health Risk Assessment for an Amended Section 3 Registration for the Expanded Citrus Crop Group 10-10.” in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0515.

Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern (LOC) to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which the NOAEL and the LOAEL are identified. Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.

A summary of the toxicological endpoints for diflubenzuron used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 and 2 of this unit.

The fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish (king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, and cobia) is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils and is implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

Gulf migratory group king mackerel's Florida west coast subzone of the Gulf eastern zone is divided into northern and southern subzones, each with separate quotas. The southern subzone is that part of the Florida west coast subzone, which from November 1 through March 31, extends south and west from 25°20.4' N. lat. (a line directly east from the Miami-Dade/Monroe County, FL, boundary), north to 26°19.8' N. lat. (a line directly west from the Lee/Collier County, FL, boundary), i.e., the area off Monroe and Collier Counties. From April 1 through October 31, the southern subzone is that part of the Florida west coast subzone that is between 26°19.8' N. lat. (a line directly west from the Lee/Collier County, FL, boundary) and 25°48' N. lat. (a line directly west from the Monroe/Collier County, FL, boundary), i.e., the area off Collier County (50 CFR 622.384(b)(1)(i)(C)).

On January 30, 2012 (76 FR 82058, December 29, 2011), NMFS implemented a commercial ACL (commercial quota) for the Gulf migratory group king mackerel in the southern Florida west coast subzone of 551,448 lb (250,133 kg) for vessels using run-around gillnet gear (50 CFR 622.384(b)(1)(i)(B)( 1 )), for the current fishing year, July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2014.

Regulations at 50 CFR 622.8(b) require NMFS to close any segment of the king mackerel commercial sector when its ACL (quota) has been reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification with the Office of the Federal Register. NMFS has determined that the commercial ACL (commercial quota) of 551,448 lb (250,133 kg) for Gulf group king mackerel for vessels using run-around gillnet gear in the southern Florida west coast subzone will be reached on [January 29, 2014. Accordingly, commercial fishing for such vessels in the southern Florida west coast subzone is closed at 12:01 p.m., eastern standard time, January 29, 2014, through 6 a.m., eastern standard time, January 20, 2015, the beginning of the next fishing season, i.e., the day after the 2015 Martin Luther King Jr. Federal holiday. Accordingly, the operator of a vessel that has been issued a Federal commercial permit to harvest Gulf migratory group king mackerel using run-around gillnet gear in the southern Florida west coast subzone must have landed ashore and bartered, traded, or sold such king mackerel prior to 12:01 p.m., eastern standard time, January 29, 2014.

Except for a person aboard a charter vessel or headboat, during the closure, no person aboard a vessel for which a commercial permit for king mackerel has been issued may fish for or retain Gulf group king mackerel harvested using run-around gillnet gear in the southern Florida west coast subzone. Persons aboard a vessel for which a commercial permit for king mackerel has been issued, except persons who also possess a king mackerel gillnet permit, may fish for or retain Gulf group king mackerel harvested using hook-and-line gear in the southern Florida west coast subzone at this time. A person aboard a vessel that has a valid charter vessel/headboat permit for coastal migratory pelagic fish may continue to retain king mackerel in or from the closed zones or subzones under the bag and possession limits set forth in 50 CFR 622.382(a)(1)(ii) and (a)(2), provided the vessel is operating as a charter vessel or headboat. A charter vessel or headboat that also has a commercial king mackerel permit is considered to be operating as a charter vessel or headboat when it carries a passenger who pays a fee or when there are more than three persons aboard, including operator and crew.

During the closure, king mackerel harvested using run-around gillnet gear in the southern Florida west coast subzone, including those harvested under the bag and possession limits, may not be purchased or sold. This prohibition does not apply to king mackerel harvested using run-around gillnet gear in the southern Florida west coast subzone that were harvested, landed ashore, and sold prior to the closure and were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor.

The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of Gulf migratory group king mackerel and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.

This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.8(b) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

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

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fisheries. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that the need to immediately implement this action to close the fishery constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Such procedures would be unnecessary because the rule implementing the ACL (quota) and the associated requirement for closure of the commercial harvest when the ACL (quota) is reached or projected to be reached has already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure.

Providing prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this action would be contrary to the public interest because any delay in the closure of the commercial harvest could result in the commercial quota being exceeded. There is a need to immediately implement this action to protect the king mackerel resource because the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the quota.

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