Executive Order 12866

This rule has been determined to be economically significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, it has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

A Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) has been completed and a summary is shown below; the full analysis may be viewed on http://www.regulations.gov. In summary, the analysis finds that changes in the rule will have an expected cost of $115.9 million annually over a 10-year period to the FCIC in administration of the Federal crop insurance program. Non-quantifiable benefits of this rule include increased program integrity, additional risk management tools, and incentives for beginning farmers and ranchers to participate in the Federal crop insurance program.

On February 7, 2014, the 2014 Farm Bill was enacted. As a result, FCIC must revise those provisions of the General Administrative Regulations—Ineligibility for Programs under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (Subpart U), Catastrophic Risk Protection Endorsement (CAT Endorsement), Area Risk Protection Insurance (ARPI) Basic Provisions, and the Common Crop Insurance Provisions (CCIP) Basic Provisions to implement program changes identified in Titles II and XI of the 2014 Farm Bill.

On January 2014, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued its estimates on the effects on direct spending and revenues of the 2014 Farm Bill. These estimates were used as a basis for the quantifiable costs and benefits stated in this BCA.

The purpose of this rule is to amend Subpart U, the CAT Endorsement, the ARPI Basic Provisions, and the CCIP Basic Provisions to implement the following changes:

Section 2611 requires those enrolled in crop insurance, for certain agriculture commodities, to comply with conservation compliance requirements or forego premium subsidy. For acts or situations of non-compliance, ineligibility for premium subsidy will be applied beginning with the 2016 reinsurance year. Annually, FCIC anticipates a savings of $4.6 million as a result of this change.

Section 11007 makes available insurance coverage by separate enterprise units based on irrigated and non-irrigated acreage of crops within counties. Annually, FCIC anticipates a cost of $53.3 million as a result of this change.

Section 11009 allows insureds to exclude any recorded or appraised yield for any crop year in which the per planted acre yield in the county is at least 50 percent below the simple average for the crop in the county for the previous 10 consecutive crop years, and allows insureds in any county contiguous to a county in which an insured is eligible to exclude a recorded or appraised yield to also elect a similar adjustment. Annually, FCIC anticipates a cost of $35.7 million as a result of this change.

Section 11014 applies a reduction of premium subsidy, a reduced insurance guarantee, and eliminates substitute yields in the insurance guarantee during the first four crop years that land is converted from native sod to the production of an annual crop in the States of Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Annually, FCIC anticipates a savings of $11.4 million as a result of this change.

Section 11015 allows producers to elect a different level of coverage for an agricultural commodity by irrigated and non-irrigated acreage. Annually, FCIC anticipates a cost of $16.8 million as a result of this change.

Section 11016 establishes crop insurance benefits for beginning farmers and ranchers by increasing the premium subsidy available by ten percentage points, allowing the use of yield history from any previous farm or ranch operation in which they had decision making or physical involvement, and replacing a low yield in their actual production history with a yield equal to 80 percent of the applicable transitional yield. Annually, FCIC anticipates a cost of $26.1 million as a result of this change.

Section 11019 allows for the correction of errors in information obtained from the producer within a reasonable amount of time and consistent with information provided to other agencies of the Department of Agriculture subject to certain limitations for maintaining program integrity. This section also provides for the payment of debt after the termination date in accordance with procedures and limitations established by the FCIC, if a producer inadvertently fails to pay a debt and has been determined to be ineligible to participate in the Federal crop insurance program. FCIC does not believe there are any additional cost outlays resulting from this change. Therefore, FCIC believes insureds will benefit from this change and the benefits are non-quantifiable.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the collections of information in this rule have been approved by OMB under control numbers 0563-0085, 0563-0083, and 0563-0053.

FCIC is committed to complying with the E-Government Act of 2002, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.

It has been determined under section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132, Federalism, that this rule does not have sufficient implications to warrant consultation with the States. The provisions contained in this rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States, or on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

FCIC certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Program requirements for the Federal crop insurance program are the same for all producers regardless of the size of their farming operation. For instance, all producers are required to submit an application and acreage report to establish their insurance guarantees and compute premium amounts, and all producers are required to submit a notice of loss and production information to determine the amount of an indemnity payment in the event of an insured cause of crop loss. Whether a producer has 10 acres or 1000 acres, there is no difference in the kind of information collected. To ensure crop insurance is available to small entities, the Federal Crop Insurance Act (Act) authorizes FCIC to waive collection of administrative fees from beginning farmers or ranchers and limited resource farmers. FCIC believes this waiver helps to ensure that small entities are given the same opportunities as large entities to manage their risks through the use of crop insurance. A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not been prepared since this regulation does not have an impact on small entities, and, therefore, this regulation is exempt from the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605).

This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.450.

This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which require intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. See the Notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, published at 48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983.

This rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988 on civil justice reform. The provisions of this rule will not have a retroactive effect. The provisions of this rule will preempt State and local laws to the extent such State and local laws are inconsistent herewith. With respect to any direct action taken by FCIC or to require the insurance provider to take specific action under the terms of the crop insurance policy, the administrative appeal provisions published at 7 CFR part 11 must be exhausted before any action against FCIC for judicial review may be brought.

This action is not expected to have a significant economic impact on the quality of the human environment, health, or safety. Therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is needed.

On February 7, 2014, the 2014 Farm Bill was enacted. FCIC must revise those provisions of the General Administrative Regulations—Ineligibility for Programs under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (Subpart U), Catastrophic Risk Protection Endorsement (CAT Endorsement), Area Risk Protection Insurance Basic Provisions (ARPI Basic Provisions), and the Common Crop Insurance Policy Basic Provisions (CCIP Basic Provisions) to implement program changes mandated by the 2014 Farm Bill. On March 14, 2014, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and Risk Management Agency (RMA) published a notice in the Federal Register (79 FR 14472-14475) announcing a listening session for initial public input about the new programs and changes to existing programs for which FSA and RMA were delegated authority to implement. The agencies also announced an opportunity for the public to also make written statements through April 2, 2014. The listening session was held on March 27, 2014, in the Department of Agriculture's Jefferson Auditorium in Washington, DC.

FSA and RMA received 32 written comments from individuals, trade groups, other organizations, and State entities. All written comments are available to the public for review via this link: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FSA-2014-0002-0001.

Total attendance at the listening session was 127 people. All of the Commodity, Credit, and Crop Insurance Titles, and parts of the Conservation, Energy, and Miscellaneous Titles were covered during the listening session. A number of oral statements from attendees were program-specific. However, recurring overarching ideas expressed during the listening session included placing a priority on information sharing between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and its employees, farmers and ranchers in general, and beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.

Another overarching recommendation was the need to develop education, outreach, and tools to help farmers and ranchers in making their decisions. Other recommendation urged USDA to develop programs and policies that do not hinder business and family farming decisions and strengthen local assistance to farmers and ranchers on completing forms and planning.

Statements that addressed issues outside the scope of the 2014 Farm Bill are not addressed in this rule. Statements, such as those about RMA developing new products to help small, diversified farmers are not related to this rule but will be considered by RMA when establishing its priorities for research and development.

In general, RMA received listening session statements regarding the timing of when the 2014 Farm Bill requirements would go into effect. Statements were also received urging RMA to issue rules and information as quickly as possible.

Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill that require revisions in the regulations are as follows:

a. Section 2611 of the 2014 Farm Bill links the eligibility for premium subsidy paid by FCIC to an insured's compliance with the Highly Erodible Land Conservation (HELC) and Wetland Conservation (WC) provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. The regulations covering these provisions are set forth in the Federal Register at 7 CFR Part 12. To be eligible for premium subsidy paid by FCIC, an insured must (1) have a completed certification of compliance, form AD-1026, with the HELC and WC provisions on file with the Farm Service Agency (FSA); (2) be in compliance with a conservation plan approved by NRCS for all highly erodible land; (3) not plant an agricultural commodity on a wetland converted after February 7, 2014; and (4) not have converted a wetland for the purpose, or to have the effect, of making the production of an annually planted agricultural commodity possible on such converted wetland after February 7, 2014.

For the purposes of the HELC and WC provisions, “agricultural commodity” is defined as any agricultural commodity planted and produced in a state by annual tilling of the soil, including tilling by one-trip planters, or sugarcane. Insureds determined ineligible for premium subsidy paid by FCIC for a reinsurance year will be ineligible for premium subsidy paid by FCIC on all their policies, including CAT policies, unless specific exemptions apply. There is a phase-in period for insureds who have never been subject to the HELC and WC provisions previously and these insureds will be given additional time to become compliant before any premium subsidy is denied.

USDA will determine an insured's eligibility for premium subsidy paid by FCIC at a time that is as close to the beginning of the next reinsurance year (July 1) as practical. The determination will be based on FSA and Natural Resources Conservation Service determinations regarding compliance with the HELC and WC provisions, as recorded in FSA's automated system. Insureds who do not have a certification of compliance, form AD-1026, on file with FSA prior to the beginning of the reinsurance year (July 1) will be ineligible for premium subsidy, unless insureds can demonstrate they are a beginning farmer or rancher who has not previously had an insurable interest in a crop or livestock and they began farming for the first time after the beginning of the reinsurance year but prior to the sales closing date. In addition, an insured who is in violation of the HELC or WC provisions will be ineligible for premium subsidy, unless specific exemptions apply. This means that an insured who is determined to be non-compliant on June 1, 2015, (2015 reinsurance year) will, unless otherwise exempted, be denied premium subsidy effective July 1, 2015, the start of the 2016 reinsurance year, and will not be eligible for any premium subsidy for any policies during the 2016 reinsurance year. Even if the insured becomes compliant during the 2016 reinsurance year, the insured will not be eligible for premium subsidy until the 2017 reinsurance year starting on July 1, 2016. FCIC is amending the CAT Endorsement, ARPI Basic Provisions, and CCIP Basic Provisions to implement these provisions effective for any policies with a sales closing date on or after July 1, 2015.

b. Section 11003 of the 2014 Farm Bill created a new insurance product that provides coverage for a portion of the underlying crop insurance policy deductible called the Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO). SCO must be purchased as an endorsement to the CCIP Basic Provisions and applicable Crop Provisions. SCO will be available, starting with the 2015 crop year, in select counties for corn, soybeans, wheat, sorghum, cotton, and rice, and made available to other crops and areas in future years if there is sufficient data and coverage is provided on the actuarial documents.

Prior to the 2014 Farm Bill, the CAT Endorsement did not allow options or endorsements to extend to CAT policies. However, section 11003 specifically makes SCO available to all policies offered under Subtitle A of the Act, which includes both additional coverage and CAT coverage. Therefore, this rule amends the CAT Endorsement to allow SCO to be available for CAT policies.

c. Section 11007 of the 2014 Farm Bill makes available insurance coverage by separate enterprise units for irrigated and non-irrigated acreage of a crop within the county. The new language allows two separate enterprise units, one for all irrigated acreage of the crop, and one for all non-irrigated acreage of the crop. Enterprise units by irrigated and non-irrigated practice will be available for any crop in which enterprise units are allowed through the actuarial documents, Crop Provisions, or Special Provisions. Availability of enterprise units will be subject to the current requirements in the Basic Provisions. This means that both the irrigated and non-irrigated acreage must each separately qualify for enterprise units. If insureds do not qualify for separate irrigated and non-irrigated enterprise units, there are two options based on the timing of the determination: (1) If the determination is made on or before the acreage reporting date, insureds may have one enterprise unit comprise of all irrigated and non-irrigated acreage in the county of the crop, if they qualify, or basic or optional units depending on which unit structure the insureds reported on the acreage report; or (2) if the determination is made after acreage reporting date, the policy allows insureds to have one enterprise unit comprise of all irrigated and non-irrigated acreage in the county of the crop if they meet the qualifications or a basic unit will be assigned. The provisions regarding this section of the 2014 Farm Bill may not be implemented upon publication; therefore to allow flexibility, FCIC has revised section 34 of the CCIP Basic Provisions to allow the actuarial documents to specify when separate enterprise units by irrigated and non-irrigated practice will be available.

d. Section 11009 of the 2014 Farm Bill allows insureds to elect to exclude any recorded or appraised yield for any crop year in which the per planted acre yield in the county was at least 50 percent below the simple average of the per planted acre yield during the previous 10 consecutive crop years. A crop year determined eligible for exclusion in a county will also be eligible for exclusion in any contiguous county. Elections to exclude yields, by eligible crop year, by irrigated and non-irrigated acreage will be specified in the actuarial documents. Eligible crop year(s) depends upon the history for the crop year in comparison to the previous 10 consecutive crop years for a crop/county and irrigation practice. Production data availability and intensive data analysis may limit FCIC's ability to authorize exclusions of yields for all APH crops in all counties. The provisions regarding this section of the 2014 Farm Bill may not be implemented upon publication; therefore, to allow flexibility, FCIC has revised the CCIP Basic Provisions to allow the actuarial documents to specify when insureds may elect to exclude any recorded or appraised yield.

e. Section 11014 of the 2014 Farm Bill stipulates there will be a reduction of benefits on native sod acreage during the first four crop years after the acreage is tilled and is planted to an annual crop after the date of enactment of the 2014 Farm Bill. Insureds' benefits are reduced for native sod acreage during the first four crop years of planting an annual crop by reducing the amount of premium subsidy by 50 percentage points than otherwise would be available on additional coverage policies, reducing the insurance guarantee to 65 percent of the applicable transitional yield, and eliminating yield substitution for a year of poor or low yields, as applicable. The reduction in insureds' benefits only applies to insureds who have tilled an area of native sod greater than five acres in the county in the States of Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, or South Dakota. FCIC has revised the premium subsidy and insurance guarantee provisions in the CCIP Basic Provisions and the ARPI Basic Provisions, as applicable, to incorporate these changes.

f. Section 11015 of the 2014 Farm Bill allows insureds with additional coverage policies to elect two separate coverage levels, one for all irrigated acreage of the crop in the county and one for all non-irrigated acreage of the crop in the county. This will be available where both an irrigated practice and non-irrigated practice is available in the actuarial documents. For example, an insured may choose a 65 percent coverage level for all irrigated acreage (corn irrigated practice) and an 80 percent coverage level for all non-irrigated acreage (corn non-irrigated practice). Further, if the Crop Provisions allow the option to separately insure individual crop types or varieties, separate coverage levels by irrigated and non-irrigated practice will also be available for each type or variety. For example, an insured may choose 65 percent coverage level for processing type apples with an irrigated practice and a 70 percent coverage level for processing type apples with a non-irrigated practice. The insured may also choose a 70 percent coverage level for fresh type apples with an irrigated practice and a 75 percent coverage level for fresh type apples with a non-irrigated practice. This election is already allowed in the ARPI Basic Provisions. The provisions regarding this section of the 2014 Farm Bill may not be implemented upon publication; therefore, to allow flexibility for implementing this provision, FCIC has revised the CCIP Basic Provisions to allow the actuarial documents to specify when separate coverage levels by irrigated and non-irrigated practices will be available.

g. Section 11016 of the 2014 Farm Bill establishes crop insurance incentives for beginning farmers and ranchers by waiving the administrative fee for CAT coverage and additional coverage policies, increasing the premium subsidy that otherwise would have been available by ten percentage points, allowing the use of yield history from any previous involvement in a farm or ranch operation, including decision making or physical involvement in the production of the crop or livestock, and replacing an excluded yield within actual production history with a yield equal to 80 percent of the applicable transitional yield. To qualify as a beginning farmer or rancher, a producer must not have actively operated and managed a farm or ranch in any county, in any state, with an insurable interest in any crop or livestock as an owner-operator, landlord, tenant, or sharecropper for more than five crop years. This will exclude any crop year when the beginning farmer or rancher was under the age of 18, enrolled in post-secondary studies or on active duty in the U.S. military. Entities may qualify for beginning farmer or rancher benefits only if all of the substantial beneficial interest holders qualify as a beginning farmer or rancher. For example, a son moves home to take over the family farm and incorporates with his spouse and neither have previous farming experience. Their corporation would qualify for beginning farmer or rancher benefits. FCIC has added a definition of “beginning farmer and rancher” and revised the administrative fee, premium subsidy, insurance guarantee, and yield substitution provision in the CCIP Basic Provisions and the ARPI Basic Provisions, as applicable, to incorporate these changes.

h. Section 11017 of the 2014 Farm Bill allows producers of upland cotton to purchase an additional policy known as the “Stacked Income Protection Plan” (STAX). STAX can be purchased as a stand-alone policy or in conjunction with any individual or area plan of insurance at any coverage level offered by FCIC. Further, STAX is found in section 508B of the Act and is not limited to the additional coverage found in section 508(c) of the Act. This means that STAX is statutorily authorized to be offered with CAT policies. Therefore, this rule amends the CAT Endorsement to clarify that STAX will be available for CAT policies. STAX will be available, starting with the 2015 crop year, in select counties were insurance for upland cotton is available as specified on the actuarial documents.

i. Section 11019 of the 2014 Farm Bill allows for the correction of errors in information obtained from the insured in addition to the correction of information currently authorized in the policies for the purposes of obtaining coverage. Within a reasonable amount of time following the sales closing date, corrections can be made in the information provided for the purposes of obtaining coverage to ensure consistency with information provided to other agencies of the Department of Agriculture. Section 11019 allows certain information to be corrected after the acreage reporting date to reconcile information determined from any other USDA program or verified by another USDA agency. This ability to correct reported information does not apply to any other information that has not been determined or verified for the purposes of another USDA program. The ability to make these corrections are not without limitation and program integrity will be protected. Lastly, electronic transmission errors, such as transpositions, committed by the insurance provider, agent or any agency within USDA can be corrected by the insurance provider at any time the error is discovered. This section of the 2014 Farm Bill also provides for the payment of debt after the sales closing date in accordance with procedures and limitations established by FCIC, if an insured inadvertently fails to pay a debt and has been determined ineligible to participate in the Federal crop insurance program. FCIC is revising Subpart U, the CCIP Basic Provisions, and the ARPI Basic Provisions to incorporate these changes.

The changes mandated by the 2014 Farm Bill impact almost all county crop programs within the Federal crop insurance program. This entails a monumental amount of work. FCIC is implementing the changes made by the 2014 Farm Bill to all applicable programs as quickly as possible but there may be situations in which certain programs or program changes cannot be made for the earliest crop or reinsurance year after publication of these regulations. FCIC will continue to work on implementing the provisions everywhere they are applicable as expeditiously as possible. Insureds should check with their agents and on the RMA Web site at www.rma.usda.gov for updates on the implementation efforts.

Previously, changes made to the Federal crop insurance policies codified in the Code of Federal Regulations were required to be implemented through the rulemaking process. Such action was not required by the Administrative Procedures Act because contracts were exempt from notice and comment rulemaking and the crop insurance policy is a contract. However, a prior Secretary of Agriculture published a notice in the Federal Register stating that the Department of Agriculture would, to the maximum extent practicable, use the notice and comment rulemaking process when making program changes, including those involving contracts. FCIC has complied with this notice over the subsequent years. Recently, the current Secretary of Agriculture has published a notice in the Federal Register rescinding the prior notice, thereby making contracts again exempt from the notice and comment rulemaking process. However, FCIC values the input it receives through comments and has elected to solicit comments to this interim rule, which will be considered when this rule is made final. For these reasons, these policy changes are effective upon filing with the Office of the Federal Register.

The changes to the policy made in this rule are applicable for the 2015 and succeeding crop years for all crops with a contract change date on or after the effective date of this rule, and for the 2016 and succeeding crop years for all crops with a contract change date prior to the effective date of this rule, provided the actuarial documents reflect the implementation of the policy changes, as applicable.

1. The specific changes to Subpart U—Ineligibility for Programs Under the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 CFR part 400) are as follows:

a. FCIC is adding a new section 400.679(g) to specify when a person who has requested to have their policy reinstated by the Administrator of the Risk Management Agency and the request is denied, the person remains ineligible consistent with section 11019 of the 2014 Farm Bill.

b. FCIC is adding a new section 400.682(g) to specify when FCIC will allow the payment of debt after the sales closing date if a producer inadvertently fails to pay a debt and has been determined ineligible to participate in the Federal crop insurance program consistent with section 11019 of the 2014 Farm Bill.

c. FCIC is revising section 400.485(b) to specify reinstatement is an option to regain ineligibility in this paragraph.

2. The specific changes to the CAT Endorsement (7 CFR part 402) are as follows:

a. Section 6—FCIC is revising section 6(a) to clarify that insureds will be responsible to pay the premium if it is determined the insured has committed a violation of the HELC or WC provisions of 7 CFR part 12 as amended by the 2014 Farm Bill or the insured has not filed a form AD-1026 consistent with section 2611 of the 2014 Farm Bill unless the insured is otherwise exempted. FCIC is also revising section 6(a) to clarify that the policy will be terminated for failure to pay any premium that may be due.

FCIC is revising section 6(b) to clarify that if premium is due, as specified in new section 6(f), it must be paid within 30 days after the insured has been billed.

FCIC is revising section 6(c) to specify the administrative fee for CAT coverage will also be waived for insureds who qualify as beginning farmers or ranchers consistent with section 11016 of the 2014 Farm Bill.

FCIC is revising section 6(e) to clarify that if premium is owed, as specified in new section 6(f), and is not paid when due, the insured may be ineligible for certain other USDA program benefits.

FCIC is adding a new section 6(f) to specify the insured will be responsible for the payment of the premium if it is determined the insured has committed a violation of the HELC or WC provisions of 7 CFR part 12 as amended by the 2014 Farm Bill or the insured has not filed a form AD-1026 consistent with section 2611 of the 2014 Farm Bill.

FCIC is adding a new section 6(g) to specify that if the Act expressly authorizes an option or endorsement to be applicable to CAT coverage, the insured will owe a separate annual premium and administrative fee for such option or endorsement. SCO and STAX, authorized by sections 11003 and 11017 of the 2014 Farm Bill, will require the payment of premium for such coverage even if the insured has elected CAT coverage. FCIC is also adding a new section 6(h) to specify the policy will be terminated if the insured fails to pay the premium due by the termination date.

b. Section 11—FCIC is revising section 11(a) to specify that if the Act authorizes options or endorsements to be applicable to CAT coverage, such options or endorsements may be purchased in addition to the CAT Endorsement. This revision should eliminate any conflict between the CAT Endorsement and SCO or STAX, allowing both to be available with CAT coverage consistent with sections 11003 and 11017of the 2014 Farm Bill.

3. The specific changes to the Area Risk Protection Insurance Basic Provisions (7 CFR part 407) are as follows:

a. Section 1—FCIC is adding the definition of “beginning farmer or rancher” consistent with section 11016 of the 2014 Farm Bill, which allows the exclusion of crop years in which an individual had an insurable interest if, at the time, the individual was under the age of 18, while serving full-time in the military service of the United States, or while in post-secondary education. FCIC is revising the definition of “native sod” to clarify the designation now refers to the date of enactment of the 2014 Farm Bill and removing the definition of “Prairie Pothole National Priority Area” since only native sod in the states of Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, or South Dakota and are effected by the restrictions contained in section 11014 of the 2014 Farm Bill;

b. Section 2—FCIC is revising section 2(k)(2)(iii) to specify when FCIC will allow the payment of debt after the sales closing date if a producer inadvertently fails to pay a debt and has been determined ineligible to participate in the Federal crop insurance program consistent with section 11019 of the 2014 Farm Bill.

FCIC is adding section 2(k)(2)(iv) to specify that any determination made in accordance with section 2(k)(2)(iii)(B) exhausts all administrative remedies for the purposes of termination.

c. Section 5—FCIC is removing the provisions in section 5(d) regarding the ability of a Governor of a State designated within the Prairie Pothole National Priority Area to elect to make native sod acreage uninsurable for the first five crop years of planting because these provisions are no longer applicable under section 11014 of the 2014 Farm Bill. FCIC is adding provisions to section 5(d) regarding the consequences for the first four crop years of planting on native sod acreage, which requires guarantees to be based on a reduced yield of 65 percent of the transitional yield and a reduced premium subsidy for additional coverage policies that is 50 percentage points less than would otherwise be available. Since area based plans of insurance do not have a transitional yield, FCIC is amending the provisions to require a reduced yield equal to a 65 percent protection factor. This will have the similar effect as reducing the yield to 65 percent of the transitional yield consistent with section 11014 of the 2014 Farm Bill.

FCIC is adding a new section 5(e) that clarifies that the provisions of section 5(d) do not apply to native sod areas of five acres or less in a county.

d. Section 7—FCIC is revising section 7(a)(6) to specify the administrative fee will be waived for insureds who qualify as beginning farmers or ranchers consistent with section 11016 of the 2014 Farm Bill.

FCIC is adding a new section 7(h) to specify the insured's premium subsidy will be 10 percentage points greater if they qualify as a beginning farmer or rancher consistent with section 11016 of the 2014 Farm Bill.

FCIC is adding a new section 7(i) to specify the insured will be ineligible for premium subsidy if it is determined the insured has committed a violation of the HELC or WC provisions of 7 CFR part 12, as amended by the Agricultural Act of 2014, or the insured has not filed a form AD-1026 consistent with section 2611 of the 2014 Farm Bill unless the insured is otherwise exempted.

e. Section 22—FCIC is revising section 22(a) by removing the phrase “any portion thereof,” to remove ambiguity of the billing process and interest situations on amounts owed, and to ensure consistency in how insurance providers administer this section. Section 11019 of the 2014 Farm Bill allows producers to pay debts after the termination date and still remain eligible for insurance if certain conditions are met.

f. FCIC is adding a new section 31 to specify that in addition to the corrections to information provided by the insured previously allowed in the policy, the insurance provider may correct the information provided on an application or by the sales closing date, by the insured, including identification numbers for the insured and any person with an substantial beneficial interest in the insured, within a reasonable time after the sales closing date if the information is in error to ensure such information is correct and consistent with information reported by the insured for other USDA programs. FCIC is also adding a provision that allows the reconciliation of errors in information reported by the insured within a reasonable time after the acreage reporting date if an agency within USDA has determined the correct information. Corrections can also be made after the date an agency within USDA has corrected the data as a result of the verification of the information. There are limitations on such corrections if the insured would avoid an eligibility requirement or obtain a disproportionate benefit, increase the guarantee or indemnity if a cause of loss has occurred or avoid premium if no cause of loss has occurred, or to avoid an obligation under Federal or State law. FCIC has also added a provision that allows the insurance provider at any time to revise any incorrect information provided by the insured, if the incorrect information was caused by electronic transmission errors by the insurance provider or agent or errors made by any agency within USDA in transmitting the information provided by the insured for purposes of other USDA programs. This is consistent with section 11019 of the 2014 Farm Bill.

4. The specific changes to the Common Crop Insurance Regulations, Basic Provisions (7 CFR part 457) are as follows:

a. Section 1—FCIC is adding the definition of “beginning farmer or rancher” consistent with section 11016 of the 2014 Farm Bill, which allows the exclusion of crop years in which an individual had an insurable interest if, at the time, the individual was under the age of 18, while serving full-time in the military service of the United States, or while in post-secondary education. FCIC is revising the definition of “native sod” to clarify the designation now refers to the date of enactment of the 2014 Farm Bill and removing the definition of “Prairie Pothole National Priority Area” since only native sod in the states of Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota and are effected by the restrictions contained in section 11014 of the 2014 Farm Bill.

b. Section 2—FCIC is revising section 2(f)(2)(iii) to specify when FCIC will allow the payment of debt after the sales closing date if a producer inadvertently fails to pay a debt and has been determined ineligible to participate in the Federal crop insurance program consistent with section 11019 of the 2014 Farm Bill.

FCIC is adding section 2(f)(2)(iv) to specify that any determination made in accordance with section 2(f)(2)(iii)(B) exhausts all administrative remedies for the purposes of termination.

c. Section 3—FCIC is adding a new section 3(b)(2)(iii) to allow separate coverage levels for irrigated and non-irrigated practices consistent with section 11015 of the 2014 Farm Bill.

FCIC is also adding a new section 3(l) to specify that notwithstanding any other provision in section 3, if the insured is a beginning farmer or rancher who was previously involved in a farming or ranching operation, including involvement in the decision-making or physical involvement in the production of the crop or livestock on the farm, for any acreage obtained by the beginning farmer or rancher, the beginning farmer or rancher shall receive a yield that is the higher of: (1) The actual production history of the previous producer of the crop or livestock on the acreage in which the beginning farmer or rancher was involved; or (2) the actual production history of the beginning farmer or rancher.

d. Section 5—FCIC is replacing the previously reserved section 5 with a new section titled “Exclusion of Yields” to specify when an insured may elect to exclude their actual yields if the actual yield for the acreage is at least 50 percent below the simple average of the per planted acre yield for the crop in the county for the previous 10 years consistent with section 11009 of the 2014 Farm Bill.

e. Section 7—FCIC is revising section 7(e)(4) to specify the administrative fee will be waived for insureds who qualify as beginning farmers or ranchers consistent with section 11016 of the 2014 Farm Bill.

FCIC is adding a new section 7(g) to specify the insured's premium subsidy will be 10 percentage points greater if they qualify as a beginning farmer or rancher consistent with section 11016 of the 2014 Farm Bill.

FCIC is adding a new section 7(h) to specify the insured will be ineligible for premium subsidy if it is determined the insured has committed a violation of the HELC or WC provisions of 7 CFR part 12, as amended by the 2014 Farm Bill, or the insured has not filed a form AD-1026 consistent with section 2611 of the 2014 Farm Bill unless the insured is otherwise exempted.

f. Section 9—FCIC is removing the provisions in section 9(e) regarding the ability of a Governor of a State designated within the Prairie Pothole National Priority Area to elect to make native sod acreage uninsurable for the first five crop years of planting because these provisions are no longer applicable under section 11014 of the 2014 Farm Bill. FCIC is adding provisions to section 9(e) regarding the consequences for the first four crop years of planting on native sod acreage, which requires guarantees to be based on a reduced yield of 65 percent of the transitional yield, meaning the established yield for the insured will be based on 65 percent of the transitional yield, and a reduced premium subsidy for additional coverage policies that is 50 percentage points less than would otherwise be available consistent with section 11014 of the 2014 Farm Bill.

FCIC is adding a new section 9(f) that clarifies that the provisions of section 9(e) do not apply to native sod areas of five acres or less in a county.

g. Section 24—FCIC is revising section 24(a) by removing the phrase “any portion thereof,” to remove ambiguity of the billing process and interest situations on amounts owed, and to ensure consistency in how insurance providers administer this section. Section 11019 of the 2014 Farm Bill allows producers to pay debts after the termination date and still remain eligible for insurance if certain conditions are met.

h. FCIC is replacing the previously reserved section 25 with a new section titled “Correction of Errors” to specify that in addition to the corrections to information provided by the insured previously allowed in the policy, the insurance provider may correct the information provided on an application or by the sales closing date, by the insured, including identification numbers for the insured and any person with a substantial beneficial interest in the insured, within a reasonable time after the sales closing date if the information is in error to ensure such information is correct and consistent with information reported by the insured for other USDA programs. FCIC is also adding a provision that allows the reconciliation of errors in information reported by the insured within a reasonable time after the acreage reporting date if an agency within USDA has determined the correct information. Corrections can also be made after the date an agency within USDA has corrected the data as a result of the verification of the information. There are limitations on such corrections if the insured would avoid an eligibility requirement or obtain a disproportionate benefit, increase the guarantee or indemnity if a cause of loss has occurred, or avoid premium if no cause of loss has occurred, or to avoid an obligation under Federal or State law. FCIC has also added a provision that allows the insurance provider at any time to revise any incorrect information provided by the insured, if the incorrect information was caused by electronic transmission errors by the insurance provider or agent, or errors made by any agency within USDA in transmitting the information provided by the insured for purposes of other USDA programs. This is consistent with section 11019 of the 2014 Farm Bill.

i. Section 34—FCIC is adding a new section 34(a)(4)(viii) to allow enterprise units for irrigated and non-irrigated practices if the acreage of each practice separately qualifies for an enterprise unit consistent with section 11007 of the 2014 Farm Bill.

j. Section 36—FCIC is revising section 36(c) to specify that if the insured qualifies as a beginning farmer or rancher, the insured can elect to replace the excluded actual yield with a yield equal to 80 percent of the applicable transitional yield for the crop year in which the yield is being replaced consistent with section 11016 of the 2014 Farm Bill.

Accordingly, as set forth in the preamble, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation amends 7 CFR parts 400, 402, 407 and 457 as follows:

Section 501(b) of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLB Act)  1 requires the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of Thrift Supervision (the Agencies), as well as the National Credit Union, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission, to establish appropriate standards for the financial institutions subject to their respective jurisdictions relating to the administrative, technical, and physical safeguards for customer records and information.

In February 2001, the Agencies issued a joint final rule implementing guidelines for establishing standards for safeguarding customer information under section 501(b) of the GLB Act. 2 The Board's versions of the guidelines (now entitled Interagency Guidelines Establishing Information Security Standards (Security Guidelines)) are codified in Appendix D-2 of Regulation H (12 CFR part 208) and Appendix F of Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225). In December 2004, the Agencies amended the Security Guidelines pursuant to section 628 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 3 which requires proper disposal of consumer information. 4 The Security Guidelines establish standards relating to administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to ensure the security, confidentiality, integrity and the proper disposal of consumer information. The Security Guidelines in the Board's Regulation H and Y currently cross-reference the definitions of “customer” and “customer information” in the Board's Regulation P (Privacy of Consumer Financial Information).

In May 2014, the Board approved the repeal of Regulation P, effective June 30, 2014. 5 The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) transferred rulemaking authority for a number of consumer financial protection laws from the Board and other agencies to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), except with respect to certain motor vehicle dealers. 6 The transfer includes rulemaking authority for Regulation P under the financial privacy provisions of the GLB Act. 7 (The Dodd-Frank Act did not transfer responsibility for the Security Guidelines.) The CFPB has issued interim final rules that are substantially identical to the Board's Regulation P.

The Board is amending the cross-references in the Security Guidelines to refer to the CFPB's version of Regulation P. These amendments do not have any effect on the substantive requirements imposed by the Security Guidelines.

In accordance with section 553(b) the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)), the Board finds, for good cause, that providing an opportunity for public comment is unnecessary. The amendments are solely technical amendments that change citations in two definitions from references to the Board's Regulation P to the CFPB's Regulation P, which contain identical definitions. The revisions result in no substantive change to the rule.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506; 5 CFR part 1320 Appendix A.1), the Board has reviewed the final rule under authority delegated to the Board by the Office of Management and Budget. The technical amendments to the Security Guidelines will revise the cross-references in the Security Guidelines to refer to the CFPB's version of Regulation P. The amendments do not change any substantive requirements of the regulation or currently approved information collections. Therefore, no additional paperwork burden will be imposed as a result of this rulemaking.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board amends Regulations H and Y, 12 CFR parts 208 and 225 as follows:

I. Background

FHFA is responsible for ensuring that the regulated entities operate in a safe and sound manner, including the maintenance of adequate capital and internal controls, that their operations and activities foster liquid, efficient, competitive, and resilient national housing finance markets, and that they carry out their public policy missions through authorized activities. See 12 U.S.C. 4513. The Supplemental Order is being issued under 12 U.S.C. 4514(a), which authorizes the Director of FHFA to require by Order that the regulated entities submit regular or special reports to FHFA and establishes remedies and procedures for failing to make reports required by Order. The Supplemental Order provides to the Federal Home Loan Banks a revised template to use in reporting to the public the severely adverse results of their respective stress tests.

For the convenience of the affected parties, the text of the Order, without appendices, follows below in its entirety. You may access this Order with its attachment from FHFA's Web site at http://www.fhfa.gov/SupervisionRegulation/LegalDocuments/Pages/Orders.aspx. The Order will be available for public inspection and copying at the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Eighth Floor, 400 Seventh St. SW., Washington, DC 20024. To make an appointment, call (202) 649-3804.

The text of the Supplemental Order is as follows:

Now Therefore, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Each of the Federal Home Loan Banks shall publicly report as required by 12 CFR part 1238 the severely adverse results of the required stress testing using the template provided herewith as Attachment 1.

It is so ordered, this 24th day of June 2014

This Order is effective immediately.

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to the specified products. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on March 3, 2014 (79 FR 11719). The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received. The commenters support the NPRM (79 FR 11719, March 3, 2014).

We reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

We estimate that this AD affects about 110 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1 hour per engine to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Required parts cost about $9,250 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $92,600.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

(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.

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

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to add an AD that would apply to all British Aerospace Regional Aircraft Jetstream Model 3201 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on April 14, 2014 (79 FR 20832), and proposed to supersede AD 2007-10-16, Amendment 39-15057 (72 FR 27953, May 18, 2007).

The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country. The MCAI states:

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (79 FR 20832, April 14, 2014) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 20832, April 14, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 20832, April 14, 2014).

We estimate that this AD will affect 14 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD of inserting the document into the Airworthiness Limitations section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.

Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $1,190, or $85 per product.

We have no way of determining the cost to replace the life limited parts and to do the applicable maintenance tasks on each airplane.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

(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.

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0241; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to the specified products. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on January 7, 2014 (79 FR 763). The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

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

Friend Aircare requested that we add the engine models listed in P&WC Service Bulletin (SB) No. 12076, Revision 3, dated January 17, 1992, to the applicability of this AD because that SB requires the same modification to the PT containment ring assembly.

We agree. We revised paragraph (c) of this AD by adding certain serial numbers of the following P&WC engine models: PT6A-11, PT6A-11AG, PT6A-15AG, PT6A-110, PT6A-112, and PT6A-121. We revised paragraph (e) of this AD to specify use of either P&WC SB No. 12076, Revision 3, dated January 17, 1992; or P&WC SB No. PT6A-72-A1427, Revision 3, dated January 27, 2012, as applicable. We revised paragraph (f) of this AD by adding credit for corrective actions taken in accordance with P&WC SB No. 12076, Revision 2, dated April 24, 1991, or earlier versions.

Reabe Spraying Services, Inc. requested that we exclude from applicability engines used on single-engine aircraft, or aircraft where the engine has nothing alongside of it that would sustain damage from release of debris.

We disagree. We consider the uncontained release of engine hardware to be an unsafe condition. We did not change this AD.

Dynamic Aviation requested that the FAA withdraw the NPRM (79 FR 763, January 7, 2014). Dynamic Aviation has not experienced any PT disk blade failure in 16 years and 800,000 flight hours.

We disagree. There have been in-service events involving the perforation of PT6A series engine cases as a result of the loss of integrity of the PT containment rings under failure loads. Perforation of engine cases has been seen to result from the liberation of PT blades and from fracture/displacement of the PT containment ring itself. We consider the release of engine hardware to be an unsafe condition. This AD requires the incorporation of P&WC SB No. 12076, Revision 3, dated January 17, 1992, or P&WC SB No. PT6A-72-A1427, Revision 3, dated January 27, 2012, as applicable, to prevent uncontained events. We did not change this AD.

Dynamic Aviation requested that we change the compliance time from within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, to within 36 to 48 months after the effective date of this AD. Dynamic Aviation said the extended compliance period would better allow the complete modification of all engines.

Ameriflight LLC requested that we reconsider the period of compliance to allow a longer, more realistic timeframe for compliance.

We agree. The compliance period can be increased without an appreciable risk effect. We revised paragraph (e)(2) of this AD to read, “Within 48 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the existing PT containment ring.”

Several entities requested that the estimated time and costs of compliance for completing the requirements of this AD more accurately reflect the actual time required to modify an engine.

We agree. In the NPRM (79 FR 763, January 7, 2014), we based our estimate of 3 hours to modify an engine on original equipment manufacturer service information. Further analysis indicates this estimate is inadequate. We increased the estimated hours required to modify an engine from 3 hours to 20 hours.

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

We estimate that this AD affects 1,000 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate that it will take about 20 hours per engine to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Required parts cost about $1,655 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $3,355,000.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

(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.

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

History

On April 22, 2014, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace for the Steele, MO, area, creating controlled airspace at Steele Municipal Airport (79 FR 22457) Docket No. FAA-2014-0154. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9X dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15, 2013, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of Steele Municipal Airport, Steele, MO, for new standard instrument approach procedures developed at the airport. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes controlled airspace at Steele Municipal Airport, Steele, MO.

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

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

History

On April 22, 2014, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace for the Memphis, MO, area, creating controlled airspace at Memphis Memorial Airport (79 FR 22458) Docket No. FAA-2014-0224. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9X dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15, 2013, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of Memphis Memorial Airport, Memphis, MO, for new standard instrument approach procedures developed at the airport. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes controlled airspace at Memphis Memorial Airport, Memphis, MO.

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

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

In the Federal Register of March 17, 2014 (79 FR 14609), FDA solicited comments concerning the direct final rule for a 75-day period ending June 2, 2014. FDA stated that the effective date of the direct final rule would be on July 30, 2014, 30 days after the end of the comment period, unless any significant adverse comment was submitted to FDA during the comment period. FDA did not receive any significant adverse comments.

Accordingly, the amendments issued thereby are effective.

Background

This document contains amendments to the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1) under sections 1471 through 1474 of the Internal Revenue Code. Sections 1471 through 1474 were added to the Code, as Chapter 4 of Subtitle A, by the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-147, 124 Stat. 71).The final and temporary regulations that are the subject of these corrections are §§ 1.1471-1T, 1.1471-2, 1.1471-2T, 1.1471-3T, 1.1471-4, 1.1471-4T, 1.1471-5T, 1.1471-6T, 1.1472-1T, 1.1473-1T, and 1.1474-1T. These regulations affect persons making certain U.S.-related payments to FFIs and other foreign entities, and affect payments by FFIs to other persons.

As published, the final and temporary regulations under chapter 4 contain a number of items that need to be corrected or clarified. Several citations and cross references are corrected. These correcting amendments also include the addition, deletion, or modification of temporary regulatory language to clarify the relevant provisions to meet their intended purposes. The addition of final regulatory language only includes language that was inadvertently removed in the final and temporary regulations.

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:

This document contains amendments to the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1) under sections 871, 1441, 1461, 6041, and 6049 of the Code and the Employment Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 31) under section 3406 of the Code. The final and temporary regulations that are the subject of these corrections are §§ 1.871-14, 1.871-14T, 1.1441-1, 1.1441-1T, 1.1441-5T, 1.1441-6T, 1.1441-7T, 1.1461-1, 1.1461-1T, 1.6041-1, 1.6049-4T, 1.6049-5T, 31.3406(g)-1T, and 31.3406(h)-2T. These regulations affect persons making payments of U.S. source income to foreign persons, persons making payments to certain U.S. persons subject to reporting and backup withholding, and foreign persons claiming the exclusion from tax provided for portfolio interest.

As published, the final and temporary regulations contain a number of items that need to be corrected or clarified. Several citations and cross references are corrected. The correcting amendments also include the addition, deletion, or modification of regulatory language to clarify the relevant provisions to meet their intended purposes or for consistency with other related provisions of these regulations. The addition of final regulatory language only includes language that was inadvertently removed in the final and temporary regulations.

Accordingly, 26 CFR parts 1 and 31 are corrected by making the following correcting amendments:

This notice corrects two typographical errors, one each in OSHA's standards on Vehicle-mounted elevating and rotating work platforms at 29 CFR 1910.67 (39 FR 23502 (6/27/1974))(Docket No. OSHA-2014-0013), 1 and Logging operations at 29 CFR 1910.266 (59 FR 51672 (10/12/1994))(Docket No. OSHA-S048-2006-0674). OSHA believes the standards, as published, may mislead stakeholders; therefore, with this notice, OSHA is correcting these typographical errors.

The first typographical error this notice corrects is the title of a national consensus standards organization referenced in § 1910.67(c)(5). Section 1910.67(c)(5) states that all welding done on vehicle-mounted elevating and rotating work platforms must conform to Automotive Welding Society Standards incorporated by reference in 29 CFR 1910.6. However, as § 1910.6(i) specifies, the correct title of the organization is the American Welding Society Standards. Accordingly, in § 1910.67(c)(5) OSHA replaces “Automotive” with “American.”

The second typographical error this notice corrects is a reference in the Logging operations standard to another OSHA standard. Specifically, § 1910.266(d)(1)(iv), which establishes personal-protective-equipment requirements when logging employees operate chain saws, states that the requirement does not apply to employees who operate chain saws from a vehicle-mounted elevating and rotating work platform that meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.68. However, 29 CFR 1910.67, not § 1910.68 (Manlifts), addresses vehicle-mounted elevating and rotating work platforms. Therefore, in § 1910.266(d)(1)(iv), OSHA is inserting § 1910.67 in place of § 1910.68.

Accordingly, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration is correcting 29 CFR part 1910 by making the following correcting amendments:

Electronic and Facsimile Availability

This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available from OFAC's Web site ( www.treasury.gov/ofac ). Certain general information pertaining to OFAC's sanctions programs also is available via facsimile through a 24-hour fax-on-demand service, tel.: 202/622-0077.

On April 3, 2014, the President issued Executive Order 13664 (79 FR 19283, April 7, 2014) (E.O. 13664), invoking the authority of, inter alia, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq. ) (IEEPA) and the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. ) (NEA).

OFAC is issuing the South Sudan Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 558 (the “Regulations”), to implement E.O. 13664, pursuant to authorities delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury in E.O. 13664. A copy of E.O. 13664 appears in Appendix A to this part.

The Regulations are being published in abbreviated form at this time for the purpose of providing immediate guidance to the public. OFAC intends to supplement this part 558 with a more comprehensive set of regulations, which may include additional interpretive and definitional guidance and additional general licenses and statements of licensing policy. The appendix to the Regulations will be removed when OFAC supplements this part with a more comprehensive set of regulations.

Because the Regulations involve a foreign affairs function, the provisions of Executive Order 12866 and the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date are inapplicable. Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) does not apply.

The collections of information related to the Regulations are contained in 31 CFR part 501 (the “Reporting, Procedures and Penalties Regulations”). Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), those collections of information have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1505-0164. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control adds part 558 to 31 CFR chapter V to read as follows:

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has requested a temporary change to the operation of the Isleton Drawbridge, mile 18.7, over Sacramento River, at Isleton, CA. The drawbridge navigation span provides 15 feet vertical clearance above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw opens on signal from May 1 through October 31 from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. and from November 1 through April 30 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. At all other times the draw shall open on signal if at least four hours notice is given to the drawtender at the Rio Vista bridge across the Sacramento River, mile 12.8, as required by 33 CFR 117.189(a). Navigation on the waterway is commercial and recreational.

During the deviation period, either leaf of the double bascule drawspan will require 15 minutes to raise it to the fully open position. The other leaf will be secured open. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with the waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised.

Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies upon 15 minutes advance notice and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

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.

The Stratford Avenue Bridge has a vertical clearance of 8 feet at mean high water. The existing drawbridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.219(a).

The City of Bridgeport, requested a bridge closure to facilitate replacement of the transformer at the bridge.

Under this temporary deviation, the Stratford Avenue Bridge may remain in the closed position between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. on July 15, 2014. In the event of inclement weather the rain dates are July 16, 2014, through July 18, 2014. Vessels that can pass under the bridge in the closed position may do so at all times.

The Pequonnock River supports seasonal recreational vessel traffic and one commercial operator. There are no alternate routes. The bridge can't be opened in the event of an emergency.

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.

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones established in 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 1 on July 2, 2014. From 11 a.m. until 10 p.m. on July 2, 2014 the safety zone applies to the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 100 feet during the loading, transit, and arrival of the fireworks barge at the launch site and until the start of the fireworks display. From 11 a.m. until 8:30 p.m. on July 2, 2014 the fireworks barge will be loading pyrotechnics at Pier 50 in San Francisco, CA. From 8:30 p.m. to 8:40 p.m. on July 2, 2014 the loaded fireworks barge will transit from Pier 50 to the launch site near Pier 48 in approximate position 37°46′40″ N, 122°22′58″ W (NAD83). At the conclusion of the baseball game, approximately 10 p.m. on July 2, 2014, the safety zone will increase in size and encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a radius of 700 feet in approximate position 37°46′40″ N, 122°22′58″ W (NAD83) for the San Francisco Giants Fireworks display in 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 1. Upon the conclusion of the fireworks display the safety zone shall terminate. This safety zone will be in effect from 11 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. on July 2, 2014.

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

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

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

The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones established for Annual Fireworks Displays within the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound Area of Responsibility in 33 CFR 165.1332 during the dates and times noted below.

The following safety zones will be enforced from 5 p.m. on July 3, 2014 through 1 a.m. on July 4, 2014:

The following safety zones will be enforced from 5 p.m. on July 4, 2014 through 1 a.m. on July 5, 2014.

The following safety zone will be enforced from 5 p.m. on July 5, 2014 through 1 a.m. on July 6, 2014:

The following safety zone will be enforced from 5:00 p.m. on July 12, 2014 through 1:00 a.m. on July 13, 2014:

The following safety zone will be enforced from 5 p.m. on July 25, 2014 through 1 a.m. on July 26, 2014:

The following safety zone will be enforced from 5 p.m. on July 26, 2014 through 1 a.m. on July 27, 2014:

The following safety zone will be enforced from 5 p.m. on August 2, 2014 through 1 a.m. on August 3, 2014:

The following safety zone will be enforced from 5 p.m. on August 9, 2014 through 1 a.m. on August 10, 2014:

The special requirements listed in 33 CFR 165.1332, which can be found in the Federal Register (75 FR 33700) published on June 15, 2010, apply to the activation and enforcement of these safety zones. All vessel operators who desire to enter the safety zone must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port or their Designated Representative by contacting the Coast Guard Sector Puget Sound Joint Harbor Operations Center (JHOC) on VHF Ch 13 or Ch 16 or via telephone at (206) 217-6002.

The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1332 and 33 CFR 165 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with extensive advance notification of the safety zones via the Local Notice to Mariners and marine information broadcasts on the day of the events.

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

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

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . The Coast Guard received the information about the revised location of the fireworks display on June 2, 2014, and the fireworks display would occur before the rulemaking process would be completed. Because of the dangers posed by the pyrotechnics used in this fireworks display, the safety zones are necessary to provide for the safety of event participants, spectators, spectator craft, and other vessels transiting the event area. For the safety concerns noted, it is in the public interest to have these regulations in effect during the event.

The legal basis for the proposed rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish safety zones.

San Francisco Travel Association will sponsor the San Francisco Independence Day Fireworks Display on July 4, 2014, near Aquatic Park in San Francisco, CA in approximate positions 37°48′49″ N, 122°24′46″ W and 37°48′39″ N, 122°25′37″ W (NAD83) as depicted in National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Chart 18650. These safety zones establish a temporary restricted area on the waters 100 feet surrounding the fireworks barges during the loading, transit and arrival of the pyrotechnics from the loading site to the launch sites and until the commencement of the fireworks display. Upon the commencement of the fireworks display, the safety zones will increase in size and encompass the navigable waters around the fireworks barges within a radius of 700 feet. The fireworks display is meant for entertainment purposes. This restricted area around the fireworks barges is necessary to protect spectators, vessels, and other property from the hazards associated with pyrotechnics.

The Coast Guard will enforce the San Francisco Independence Day Fireworks Display safety zones from 9 a.m. on July 3, 2014 through 10:15 p.m. on July 4, 2014.

During the loading of the fireworks barges, while the barges are being towed to the display location, and until the start of the fireworks display, the safety zones apply to the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barges within a radius of 100 feet. Loading of the pyrotechnics onto the fireworks barges is scheduled to take place from 9 a.m. until 2 p.m. on July 3, 2014, and will take place at Pier 50 in San Francisco, CA. Towing of the barges from Pier 50 to the display locations is scheduled to take place from 8 p.m. until 8:45 p.m. on July 4, 2014. Upon the commencement of the 25 minute fireworks display, scheduled to take place from 9:30 p.m. until 9:55 p.m. on July 4, 2014, the safety zones will increase in size and encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barges within a radius of 700 feet and the will be located 1,000 feet off of Pier 39 in approximate position 37°48′49″ N, 122°24′46″ W (NAD 83) and 900 feet off the Municipal Pier in approximate location 37°48′39″ N, 122°25′37″ W (NAD 83) for the San Francisco Independence Day Fireworks Display. At the conclusion of the fireworks display the safety zones shall terminate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because to do so would be impracticable due to the insufficient time available for notice and opportunity to comment prior to the dates of the actual events and the inability for the events to be rescheduled. In addition, delayed promulgation may result in injury or damage to persons and vessels from the hazards associated with the fireworks displays.

(a) Coast Guard Captains of the Port are granted authority to establish safety and security zones in 33 CFR 1.05-1(f) for safety and environmental purposes as described in 33 CFR Part 165.

(b) Fireworks displays create hazardous conditions for the maritime public because of the large number of vessels that congregate near the displays as well as the noise, falling debris, and explosions that occur during the event. Safety zones are necessary in order to prevent vessels from congregating in the proximity of firework discharge sites to ensure maritime public safety.

This rule establishes five safety zones for the following firework displays: Freeland Celebrate America Festival on July 3, 2014 in Holmes Harbor near Freeland, WA; Port Madison Fireworks on July 4, 2014 in Agate Pass, Southwest of Suquamish, WA; Steilacoom 4th of July Celebration on July 4, 2014 in Puget Sound near Steilacoom, WA; Seattle Seafair 4th of July on July 4, 2014 in Lake Union in Seattle, WA; San Juan Island Independence Day Celebration on July 4, 2014 in Friday Harbor near Friday Harbor, WA; and Sheridan Beach Community Club Fireworks on July 4, 2014 in Lake Union near Lake Forest Park, WA. All persons and vessels will be prohibited from entering the safety zones during the dates and times they are effective unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his Designated Representative.

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

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

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit through the established safety zones during the times of enforcement. This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the temporary safety zones are minimal in size and short in duration, maritime traffic will be able to transit around them and may be permitted to transit within them with permission from the Captain of the Port or his designated representative.

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

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

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

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

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER 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 the establishment of safety zones. 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:

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because allowing this event to go forward without a safety zone in place is contrary to the public interest and would expose mariners and the public to unnecessary dangers associated with fireworks displays. For the same reasons, we find under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) that we have good cause to make the rule effective less than 30 days after publication.

On July 12, 2014, fireworks will be launched from a barge with a fall out zone that covers part of Delaware River. The Captain of the Port, Sector Delaware Bay, has determined that the Philadelphia Union Soccer Game at PPL Park Fireworks Display will pose significant risks to the public. The purpose of the rule is to promote public and maritime safety during a fireworks display, and to protect mariners transiting the area from the potential hazards associated with a fireworks display, such as accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris.

The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone in the waters of the Delaware River in Philadelphia, PA, from 9 p.m. to 10:15 p.m. on July 12, 2014. The safety zone will encompass all waters just south of the Commodore Barry Bridge within a 350 yard radius of the fireworks barge located at latitude 39°49′47.04″ N longitude 075°22′40.72″ W in Chester, PA. During enforcement of the safety zone, all persons and vessels will be prohibited from entering, transiting, mooring, or remaining within the zone, unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Delaware Bay, or her designated representative. Those persons authorized to transit through the safety zone shall abide by and follow all directions provided by the Captain of the Port Delaware Bay, or her designated representative, in order to ensure they are not disrupting the fireworks display. U.S. Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay will notify the public by broadcast notice to mariners at least one hour prior to the times of enforcement.

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

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. Although this regulation will restrict access to the regulated area, the effect of this rule will not be significant because: (i) The Coast Guard will make extensive notification of the Safety Zone to the maritime public via maritime advisories so mariners can alter their plans accordingly; (ii) vessels may still be permitted to transit through the safety zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port on a case-by-case basis; and (iii) this rule will be enforced for only the duration of the fireworks display.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to anchor or transit along a portion of the Delaware River near Chester, PA, from 9 p.m. to 10:15 p.m. on July 12, 2014, unless cancelled earlier by the Captain of the Port once all operations are completed.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reason: Vessel traffic will be allowed to pass through the zone with permission of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Delaware Bay or her designated representative and zone is limited in size and duration. Sector Delaware Bay will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the Delaware Bay and River.

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

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

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

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

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER 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 implementation of regulations within 33 CFR Part 165, applicable to safety zones on the navigable waterways. This zone will temporarily restrict vessel traffic from transiting the Delaware River along the shoreline of Chester, Pennsylvania, in order to protect the safety of life and property on the waters for the duration of the fireworks display. 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:

The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because a safety zone is impracticable because the final details for this event were not received by the Coast Guard until June 6, 2014, and this event is scheduled for July 16, 2014 with a rain date scheduled for July 17, 2014. Further, allowing this event to go forward without a safety zone in place would expose mariners and the public to unnecessary dangers associated with fireworks displays, contrary to the public interest.

For the same 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.

On July 16, 2014 fireworks will be launched from a barge with a fall out zone that covers part of the North Atlantic Ocean. The City of Ocean City has contracted with Pyrotecnico Fireworks to arrange for this display. The Captain of the Port, Sector Delaware Bay, has determined that the City of Ocean City Fireworks Display will pose significant risks to the public. The purpose of the rule is to promote public and maritime safety during a fireworks display, and to protect mariners transiting the area from the potential hazards associated with a fireworks display, such as accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. This rule is required to ensure safety on the waterway during the event and to protect both life and property on the navigable waterways of the North Atlantic Ocean in respect to the commercial/recreational vessel traffic. U.S. Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay will notify the public by broadcast notice to mariners at least one hour prior to the times of enforcement.

The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone on the Atlantic Ocean near Ocean City, NJ, from 9:10 p.m. to 10:20 p.m. on July 16, 2014 with a rain date scheduled for July 17, 2014. The safety zone will restrict vessel traffic in the North Atlantic Ocean within a 500 yard radius of a fireworks barge located at position 39-16.22 N, 074-33.54 W. During the period of the safety zone, all persons and vessels will be prohibited from entering, transiting, mooring, or remaining within the zone, unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Delaware Bay, or her designated representative. Those persons authorized to transit through the safety zone shall abide by and follow all directions provided by the Captain of the Port Delaware Bay, or her designated representative, in order to ensure they are not disrupting the event.

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

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. Although this regulation will restrict access to the regulated area, the effect of this rule will not be significant because: (i) The Coast Guard will make extensive notification of the Safety Zone to the maritime public via maritime advisories so mariners can alter their plans accordingly; (ii) vessels may still be permitted to transit through the safety zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port on a case-by-case basis; and (iii) this rule will be enforced for only the duration of the fireworks display.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to anchor or transit along a portion of North Atlantic Ocean near Ocean City, New Jersey from 9:10 p.m. to 10:20 p.m. on July 16, 2014, with a rain date scheduled for July 17, 2014, unless cancelled earlier by the Captain of the Port once all operations are completed.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reason: Vessel traffic will be allowed to pass through the zone with permission of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Delaware Bay or her designated representative and the safety zone is limited in size and duration. Sector Delaware Bay will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the North Atlantic Ocean near Ocean City, New Jersey.

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

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

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

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

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER 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 implementation of regulations within 33 CFR Part 165, applicable to safety zones on the navigable waterways. This zone will temporarily restrict vessel traffic from transiting a portion of the North Atlantic Ocean near Ocean City, New Jersey, in order to protect the safety of life and property on the waters while a firework display is conducted. 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:

The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule; the usual procedure is impracticable because we did not receive final details for this event until May 28, 2014, and the event is scheduled for July 1, 2014. Further, allowing this event to go forward without a safety zone in place would expose mariners and the public to unnecessary dangers associated with fireworks displays, contrary to the public interest.

On July 1, 2014, fireworks will be launched from a barge with a fall out zone that covers part of Delaware River. The Captain of the Port, Sector Delaware Bay, has determined that the Delaware River Waterfront Corp. Fireworks Display will pose significant risks to the public. The purpose of the rule is to promote public and maritime safety during a fireworks display, and to protect mariners transiting the area from the potential hazards associated with a fireworks display, such as accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris.

The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone in the waters of the Delaware River in Philadelphia, PA, from 8:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on July 1, 2014. The safety zone will restrict vessel traffic from entering in the immediate area of the fireworks barge. The fireworks barge will be held in place by a tug inside a boundary described as spanning from the Pennsylvania shore to the New Jersey shore and is bounded in the south by a line from position 39°56′18″ N, longitude 075°08′30″ W; thence to latitude 39°56′17″ N, longitude 075°07′56″ W, and bounded on the north by the Benjamin Franklin Bridge. During the period of the safety zone, all persons and vessels will be prohibited from entering, transiting, mooring, or remaining within the zone, unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Delaware Bay, or her designated representative. Those persons authorized to transit through the safety zone shall abide by and follow all directions provided by the Captain of the Port Delaware Bay, or her designated representative, in order to ensure they are not disrupting the fireworks display. U.S. Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay will notify the public by broadcast notice to mariners at least one hour prior to the times of enforcement.

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

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. Although this regulation will restrict access to the regulated area, the effect of this rule will not be significant because: (i) The Coast Guard will make extensive notification of the Safety Zone to the maritime public via maritime advisories so mariners can alter their plans accordingly; (ii) vessels may still be permitted to transit through the safety zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port on a case-by-case basis; and (iii) this rule will be enforced for only the duration of the fireworks display.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to anchor or transit along a portion of the Delaware River near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania from 8:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on July 1, 2014, unless cancelled earlier by the Captain of the Port once all operations are completed.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reason: Vessel traffic will be allowed to pass through the zone with permission of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Delaware Bay or her designated representative and zone is limited in size and duration. Sector Delaware Bay will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the Delaware Bay and River.

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

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

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

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

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER 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 implementation of regulations within 33 CFR Part 165, applicable to safety zones on the navigable waterways. This zone will temporarily restrict vessel traffic from transiting the Delaware River along the shoreline of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in order to protect the safety of life and property on the waters for the duration of the fireworks display. 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:

VA is required by 38 U.S.C. 521A to “carry out a program under which the Secretary may make grants to eligible entities for planning, developing, managing, and implementing programs to provide adaptive sports opportunities for disabled veterans and disabled members of the Armed Forces.” To comply with this law, VA will award grants to eligible entities to provide adaptive sport activities to disabled veterans and disabled members of the Armed Forces. This rule establishes regulations for conducting the grant program including evaluation of grant applications and otherwise administering the grant program in accordance with the law. Section 521A authorizes $8,000,000 to be appropriated for each fiscal year through 2015 to carry out the grant program. In addition, section 521A(l) specifies that VA may only provide assistance under this program for adaptive sports activities occurring through fiscal year 2016. We will indicate the funding limitation for each of the fiscal years in a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) publication in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)-designated government-wide Web site, to adequately provide notice to eligible recipients of the grants. However, we will not include the funding limitation or indicate the specific fiscal years for the program's funding in this rule because the amount of authorized appropriations may change and Congress could extend the program. By not including the funding limitation or the specific fiscal years the program is to be funded in this rule, we prevent having a regulation in the Code of Federal Regulations that appeared to restrict or stop the grant program beyond a certain date, when VA may still be authorized to administer the grant program. If funding ceases to be provided or the grant program is not extended, we would not publish a subsequent NOFA in the OMB-designated government-wide Web site for that following fiscal year, and we would amend our regulations to remove this rule from the Code of Federal Regulations.

Section 77.1 establishes the grant program and explains what the program provides. This section indicates that VA may provide grants to eligible entities to plan, develop, manage, and implement programs to provide adaptive sports activities for disabled veterans and disabled members of the Armed Forces.

Section 77.2 defines terms used throughout part 77, and in Notices of Fund Availability (NOFA) for this grant program to be published in the OMB-designated government-wide Web site.

Adaptive sports would be defined to include all sports played by persons with a disability, not just sports that have been modified to meet the needs of persons with a disability. This is because several sports have been specifically created for persons with disabilities and have no equivalent able-bodied sport. We believe that this would be consistent with the legislative intent. In particular, the law provides that the activities for which an eligible entity may reimburse a subgrantee may be used include: “instruction, participation, and competition in Paralympic sports.” 38 U.S.C. 521A. There are Paralympic sports that were created specifically for disabled participants, such as Goalball. Permitting grantees to reimburse subgrantees for Paralympic sports activities demonstrates that Congress did not intend to restrict the sports promoted by these grants to just sports that have been modified to meet the needs of persons with a disability. See also 159 Cong. Rec. H7614-H7617 (daily ed. Dec 10, 2013) (Statement of Rep. Coffman: “participation in adaptive sports and other athletic activities can help speed the rehabilitation process for disabled veterans”).

Adaptive sports activities is defined as that term is defined in 38 U.S.C. 521A(d)(3) except that the regulatory definition does not limit “instruction, participation, and competition” in sports to Paralympic sports as the statutory definition does. Instead, it includes instruction, participation, and competition in adaptive sports. See further discussion of this statutory provision with respect to § 77.15.

Adaptive sports grant is defined as a grant awarded or to be awarded under this part.

Adaptive sports grant agreement is defined as the agreement executed between VA and a grantee as specified under § 77.17.

Applicant is defined as an eligible entity that submits an application for an adaptive sport grant announced in a Notice of Funding Availability.

For purposes of this grant program, 38 U.S.C. 521A(a)(2) provides that an eligible entity must have “significant experience in managing a large-scale adaptive sports program.” In the regulation, we have thus defined “eligible entity” as a Non-Federal Government entity with significant experience in managing a large-scale adaptive sports program for persons with disabilities if those disabilities are those that many disabled veterans and disabled members of the Armed Forces have. The definition provides that to have significant experience, all the key personnel identified in the adaptive sports grant application must have qualifications that demonstrate experience implementing the adaptive sports activities to be provided and demonstrate experience working with persons with the disabilities that the disabled veterans and disabled members of the Armed Forces to be served through the adaptive sports grant would have. We believe the experience of the applicant's key personnel is the best way to measure whether the applicant has the significant experience required. The regulation further provides that this experience must be for the two continuous years immediately prior to the submission of the grant application. In most cases, two continuous years of experience demonstrates that the key personnel have conducted a program through two fiscal cycles including the planning, implementation and closeout periods associated with adaptive sports activities that have an annual operational cycle. Less than two annual operating cycles most likely means that the key personnel have not conducted an adaptive sports program through an annual program life cycle or successfully transitioned such a program to conduct a subsequent annual program. We also believe that this experience must be in providing adaptive sports activities for those with disabilities that a disabled veteran or disabled member of the Armed Forces might experience. If a key person has experience solely in disabilities that would not be experienced by the current and former military personnel to be served by this program, the person's experience may not translate to effective provision of adaptive sports activities for disabled veterans and disabled members of the Armed Forces. It follows that if more than one entity is providing the activities, the applicant can rely on the combined experience of the entities to demonstrate significant experience. When more than one entity is engaged in the provision of the adaptive sport activities, the entity applying for the adaptive sports grant must provide documentation that verifies that through the partnership, it has the experience necessary to implement all of the adaptive sports activities proposed in the adaptive sports grant application.

DoD is defined as the Department of Defense.

Grantee is defined as an entity that is awarded an adaptive sport grant under this part.

International Paralympic Committee (IPC) is defined as the global governing body of the Paralympic movement.

To be an “eligible entity,” 38 U.S.C. 521A(a)(2) requires that the entity must have “significant experience in managing a large-scale adaptive sports program.” We define Large-scale Adaptive Sports Program as one of three specific categories of programs.

(a) An adaptive sports program of a National Paralympic Committee (NPC) or of a National Governing Body (NGB) that is authorized to provide Paralympic sports programs in one or more States is a Large-scale Adaptive Sports Program because it is part of the International Paralympic program which involves thousands of disabled athletes;

(b) An adaptive sports program of a NGB that has been recognized by an external validating authority such as an international sports entity responsible for international participation in that adaptive sport is a Large-scale Adaptive Sports Program if the external validating authority has recognized programs that in total would meet the requirements of (c) below. While an individual program of the NGB may be small, we believe it can be considered part of a much larger program that the external validating authority has approved; and

(c) An adaptive sports program in which at least 50 persons with disabilities participate or in which the persons with disabilities who participate reside in at least five different congressional districts is a Large-scale Adaptive Sports Program because it has drawn people from a sufficient population base or has a sufficient number of individuals with disabilities to be considered large-scale. Because some adaptive sports programs are conducted in areas with low eligible participant populations, we believe using five congressional districts is advisable because it shows whether an adaptive sports program is able to draw from a sufficiently large population to be a Large-Scale Adaptive Sports Program. Because congressional districts are based on resident population with an average of 710,767 in the 2010 census, the use of congressional districts establishes a fairly equal standard of outreach capacity. Similarly, having 50 persons with disabilities participate demonstrates the program's ability to draw a large number of individuals when we consider that the population density of eligible participants in the particular program is lower than the general population of persons with disabilities.

National Governing Body (NGB) is defined as an organization that looks after all aspects of a sport and is responsible for training, competition and development for their sports.

National Paralympic Committee (NPC) is defined as the national organization recognized by the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) as the sole representative of athletes with disabilities from their respective jurisdiction.

Notice of funding availability (NOFA) is defined as a Notice of Funding Availability published in the OMB-designated government-wide Web site in accordance with § 77.13 and 2 CFR Part 200.

Paralympics is defined as a series of international contests for athletes with a range of physical and intellectual disabilities, including mobility disabilities, amputations, blindness, and traumatic brain injury, that are associated with and held following the summer and winter Olympic Games. This is a synthesis of several definitions from dictionaries, including Cambridge, Merriam-Webster, and Oxford, and better meets the program intent.

Participant is defined as a disabled veteran or disabled member of the Armed Forces who is receiving adaptive sport activities from a grantee.

Partnership is defined to include any arrangement in which the parties agree to cooperate and not just a legal partnership.

Peer review is defined as the technical and programmatic evaluation by a group of experts qualified by training and experience to give expert advice, based on selection criteria established under § 77.13 or in a program announcement, on the technical and programmatic merit of adaptive sports grant applications.

Persons with a disability is defined to include persons with physical and intellectual disabilities.

Sport is defined as a usually-competitive individual or group physical activity governed by a set of rules or customs, which, through casual or organized participation, aim to use, maintain, or improve physical ability and skills while normally providing entertainment to participants.

VA is defined as the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Veteran is defined using the definition in § 3.1 of this title.

Veterans Service Organization (VSO) is defined to include both organizations recognized to represent veterans with regard to their claims for VA benefits (and their subgroups) and nonprofit entities registered with the U.S. Government that have a primary mission to provide services to veterans and disabled members of the Armed Services. Subgroups of recognized organizations are included because they may desire to apply for a grant on their own behalf.

Section 77.3(a) establishes that only eligible entities may receive grants under this grant program. Section 77.3(b) establishes that the grant amounts will be specified in the NOFA. Section 77.3(c) specifies that VA will not require an applicant to provide matching funds as a condition of receiving a grant. Section 77.3(d) specifies that a grantee may not charge a participant for adaptive sports activities that were outlined in the adaptive sports grant application. This is done to ensure that participants have the most access to these adaptive sports activities as feasible, regardless of their ability to pay and to ensure that a grantee does not penalize participants for the grantee's poor financial planning. However, this provision does not prohibit the grantee from charging participants for activities or services that were not outlined in the adaptive sports grant application. Section 77.3(e) specifies that the adaptive sports grant is not a veteran's benefit, and, therefore is not subject to the same rights of appeal as an adjudication of benefits. See 38 U.S.C. 7104(a).

Section 77.4 addresses grant application procedures. Section 77.4(a) requires applicants to submit a complete grant application package to apply for an initial grant, as described in the NOFA. Section 77.4(b) requires applicants to submit a complete renewal grant application package to be considered for a renewal grant if the grantee's program remains substantially the same and specifies that the renewal grant application procedures to be followed will be described in the NOFA. By allowing grantees to submit a renewal grant application, additional grant funds could be sought for subsequent fiscal years with little or no interruption in the provision of adaptive sports services. Section 77.4(c) requires applicants to submit a grant application package to be considered for a noncompetitive grant and specifies that the grant application must meet the same format as outlined for competitive grants in the NOFA.

Section 77.5(a) specifies the selection criteria for grant applications. The criterion in § 77.5(a) will require the application to have a clearly defined plan for successful program implementation demonstrated by scope, budget, staffing, and timeframe. The existence of basic parameters such as those set forth is a reliable indicator that the program is well thought out, and likely to be successfully implemented. The criterion in § 77.5(a) also will allow VA to give priority to proposals that will provide adaptive sports activities that are aligned with the identified needs of disabled veterans and disabled members of the Armed Forces. Moreover, the criteria will allow VA, to the extent feasible, to target geographic areas which have limited adaptive sports opportunities. Section 77.5(b) establishes that supplementary information that clarifies the selection criteria in § 77.5(a) may be set forth in the NOFA. Section 77.5(b) also establishes that VA will establish in the NOFA a relative weight for each selection criteria.

Section 77.6 authorizes an applicant to amend an adaptive sports grant application. The section limits the type of amendment that will be accepted after the deadline for submitting applications. These limits are necessary because allowing major changes such as a change in scope of an application or increasing the grant amount by more than a total of 10 percent after the deadline would most likely disrupt VA's review of the grant applications and result in a delay or cancellation of grant awards.

Section 77.7 establishes the process for an applicant to withdraw an adaptive sports grant application from consideration for award.

Section 77.8 establishes additional requirements and procedures for adaptive sports grant applications. Section 77.8(a) requires applications to meet the requirements of the NOFA and permits VA to require applicants to submit pre-applications prior to submission of an application. Section 77.8(b) authorizes cooperative arrangements among eligible entities and submission of joint applications. Section 77.8(c) authorizes evaluation of all applications. Section 77.8(d) authorizes VA consideration of an applicant's performance on prior awards and an applicant's past noncompliance with grant requirements. Section 77.8(e) requires applicants to meet Federal fiscal standards as reflected in 2 CFR 200. Section 77.8(f) sets forth the options that VA has with respect to applications based on the review of the applications. Section 77.8(g) requires that VA must notify an applicant in writing of the disposition of an application and must issue a signed grant agreement to an applicant of an approved application. Section 77.8(h) discusses the availability of grant funds and the effective date of the grant. Additionally, § 77.8(h) provides that grant funds will only be used to pay for costs incurred prior to the effective date of the grant if the costs are authorized by VA and are otherwise allowable.

Section 77.9 authorizes VA to use pre-applications for adaptive sports grants. In the case of competitive grant awards for which a large number of applications is expected, VA may require pre-applications (concept papers) which may be used to eliminate those pre-applications which fail to meet minimum requirements for a grant criteria under this regulation or clearly lack sufficient merit to qualify as potential candidates for funding consideration. A pre-application in a noncompetitive grant situation may validate both the capability of the adaptive sports entity to provide the unique activity sought and verify that a noncompetitive condition exists prior to engaging in a thorough adaptive sports grant development process.

The quantity and complexity of formal adaptive sports grant applications that meet minimum requirements may create a large administrative workload; thus § 77.10 permits VA to subject both pre-applications and formal applications to the peer review process in order to more efficiently and effectively manage the selection of adaptive sports grants. Section 77.10(a) establishes how peer reviewers will provide their views and that peer review may be conducted at meetings and through mail reviews. Site visits may also be scheduled. Prior to conducting a meeting of peer reviewers, VA will take steps to comply with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. To further the efficient review of formal grant applications, § 77.10(b) establishes that VA staff will conduct an initial review of grant applications prior to peer review and eliminate from further consideration those applications that do not meet minimum program requirements specified in this regulation and weighting factors provided in the NOFA.

Section 77.11(a) requires eligible entities to agree to conduct outreach as required by 38 U.S.C. 521A(e). In order to ensure that outreach is appropriate for adaptive sports programs being conducted at the community level, § 77.11(b) establishes outreach requirements for those programs. Similarly, to ensure that outreach is appropriate for adaptive sports programs occurring at the national and regional levels, § 77.11(c) establishes outreach requirements for grantees conducting programs at that level.

To comply with OMB rules regarding notices of funding opportunities in 2 CFR Part 200, § 77.12 establishes that VA will publish a NOFA in the OMB-designated government-wide Web site when funds are available to award grants. Section 77.12(a)-(f) specifies additional information that a NOFA must include. This additional information is intended to ensure that eligible entities have the information required to apply for grants.

VA believes that in some cases awarding adaptive sports grants using a noncompetitive process may be more effective and efficient than using the competitive grant process. This includes instances where there is only one responsible source for a particular adaptive sport and no other providers capable of meeting the agency requirements. To set forth when noncompetitive adaptive sports grants are appropriate, § 77.13(a) establishes the criteria for an entity to qualify for a noncompetitive adaptive sports grant. Section 77.13(b) establishes that an applicant for a noncompetitive grant must submit an adaptive sports grant application in a manner similar to the competitive adaptive sports grant process. Section 77.13(c) establishes information that must be included in the application for a noncompetitive adaptive sports grant.

Section 77.14(a) establishes that upon a grantee being awarded a grant, VA will draft a grant agreement to be executed by VA and the grantee. Upon execution, VA obligates the grant amount. Section 77.14(a) also requires that a grantee agree to operate the program in accordance with the pertinent regulations and in accordance with the grant application. To ensure that someone is responsible for equipment purchased with grant money, to protect veterans using adaptive sports equipment, and to ensure that those injured using the equipment are fairly compensated, § 77.14(b) mandates that grant agreements include provisions to address these issues. Section 77.14(c) establishes authorized levels of administrative and personnel expenses as directed in 38 U.S.C. 521A(d)(4). VA has determined administrative and personnel expenses are necessary to implement adaptive sports grants and declines to prohibit grant funds from being used for these purposes. Section 77.14(d) implements section 521A(a)(1), (d)(2)(C)(i), and (ii) to permit the grant agreement to authorize grantees to support or provide services (including adaptive sports activities) to individuals with disabilities who are not veterans or members of the Armed Forces, or both, but to prohibit grant funds from being used to support or provide services (including adaptive sports activities) to those individuals. Finally, § 77.14(e) provides that the agreement will prohibit grant funds from being used to support or provide services to veterans or former servicemembers who are generally barred from qualifying for VA benefits or services due to the character of their discharge or other disqualifying aspects of their service.

Section 77.15(a) notifies grantees that information regarding the timeframe and manner of payment of grants will be described in the NOFA. Section 77.15(b) implements the requirement in 38 U.S.C. 521A(d) that payments of grant funds by grantees to subgrantees for instruction, participation, and competition in sports may only be made for instruction, participation, and competition in Paralympic sports. This means that payments of grant funds to subgrantees cannot be used for instruction, participation, and competition in sports other than Paralympic sports. This limitation is not applicable to the grantee's use of grants funds for other than subgrants.

In order to comply with 38 U.S.C. 521A(j) and to obtain information in order to analyze the performance of the grantee's program, § 77.16(a) specifies that all grantees must submit an annual report with specific information.

To obtain information in order to analyze the grantee's program, § 77.16(b) requires that all grantees also submit quarterly reports containing the same information required to be in the annual report. Section 77.16(c) requires that any changes occurring in a grantee's program which deviate from the grant agreement must be reported to VA. Review of the reports detailed in § 77.16(a)-(c) ensures that grant funds are being consistently used in accordance with the grant agreements. Section 77.16(d) allows VA to request other information or documentation related to a grant, in the event that information is necessary, to fully assess the success of the program. This further assists VA in determining whether grant funds were used appropriately if any part of the required reports as submitted by a grantee is inadequate. Section 77.16(e) cites non-compliance effects, because if a grantee does not submit the annual report required under this section for any fiscal year, the grantee shall not be eligible to receive a grant under this part for the subsequent fiscal year.

Section 77.17 establishes that VA may recover grant funds from a grantee under certain circumstances. Section 77.17(a) provides that VA may recover grant funds where the funds were not used in accordance with the grant agreement. Section 77.17(a) also explains that VA will issue a notice to the grantee expressing VA's intent to recover funds and that VA will provide the grantee an opportunity to respond prior to VA's final decision that action be taken to recover the funds. Section 77.17(b) specifies that, where VA makes a final decision that action will be taken to recover grant funds from a grantee, the grantee will be prohibited from receiving further grant funds from VA. This helps safeguard Federal funds and ensures the best use of the grants.

Section 77.18 establishes the right for VA to conduct reasonable visits to all grantee locations where a grantee is using adaptive sports grant funds in order to review grantee accomplishments and management control systems, determine compliance with grant provisions, and to provide such technical assistance as may be required. In the event that a grantee delivers services at a location away from the grantee's place of business, VA may accompany the grantee. If any visit is made by VA on the premises of the grantee or a subcontractor under the adaptive sports grant, the grantee must provide, and must require its subcontractors to provide, all reasonable facilities and assistance for the safety and convenience of the VA representatives in the performance of their duties. All visits and evaluations will be performed in such as manner as will not unduly delay services.

Section 77.19 establishes the requirement for grant recipients to comply with financial management requirements for recipients of Federal awards.

Section 77.20 establishes the recordkeeping requirements for grant recipients and authority for VA to request information during the timeframe of record retention.

Section 77.21 establishes that VA's administrative requirements for grantees in 38 CFR Parts 43 and 49 do not apply to grants under this part. The requirements in Parts 43 and 49 have been superseded by the regulations in 2 CFR Part 200.

The Code of Federal Regulations, as revised by this rulemaking, represents the exclusive legal authority on this subject. No contrary rules or procedures will be authorized. All VA guidance will be read to conform with this rulemaking if possible or, if not possible, such guidance will be superseded by this rulemaking.

Pursuant to section 5 of Public Law 113-59 (December 20, 2013), to ensure the uninterrupted provision of adaptive sports for disabled veterans and disabled members of the Armed Forces, any regulations that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs determines are necessary to implement the amendments made by this section may be promulgated by interim final rules to ensure the award of grants before the end of fiscal year 2014.

This interim final rule includes a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) that requires approval by OMB. Accordingly, under 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), VA has submitted a copy of this rulemaking action to OMB for review.

OMB assigns a control number for each collection of information it approves. VA may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Sections 77.4, 77.8, 77.9, 77.13, 77.16, and 77.19 contain collections of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. If OMB does not approve the collections of information as requested, VA will immediately remove the provisions containing a collection of information or take such other action as is directed by OMB.

Comments on the collections of information contained in this interim final rule should be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, or sent through electronic mail to oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. Comments should indicate that they are submitted in response to “RIN 2900-AP07-Grants for Adaptive Sports Programs for Disabled Veterans and Disabled Members of the Armed Forces.”

VA is requesting expedited review of the collections of information by OMB, pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3507(j). Comments must be received within 14 days of the publication of this rulemaking. This does not affect the deadline for the public to comment on the interim final rule. VA considers comments by the public on proposed collections of information in—

• Evaluating whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility;

• Evaluating the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the collections of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Minimizing the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

The amendments to title 38 CFR Part 77 contain collections of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for which we are requesting approval by OMB. These collections of information are described immediately following this paragraph, under their respective titles.

Title: Grants for Adaptive Sports Programs for Disabled Veterans and Disabled Members of the Armed Forces.

Summary of collections of information: The interim final rule at § 77.4(a) contains application provisions for initial grants and at § 77.4(b) application provisions for renewal grants. The interim final rule at § 77.6 contains provisions for submitting amendments to grant applications. The interim final rule at § 77.8(a) contains additional provisions for grant applications and pre-applications. The interim final rule at § 77.9 contains provisions for pre-applications for competitive and noncompetitive grants. The interim final rule at § 77.13 contains application provisions for noncompetitive adaptive sports grants and provides provisions for an adaptive sports entity to submit documentation to be considered eligible for a noncompetitive grant.

The interim final rule at § 77.16 requires each grantee submit to VA annual and quarterly reports; the annual and quarterly reports would include detailed records of the direct and supporting time expended in the provision of adaptive sports activities, individual adaptive sports activities conducted in the provision of the adaptive sports grant, adaptive sports programs carried out through partnerships with VA, DoD, VSOs, and other adaptive sports entities, the number of veterans who participated in the adapted sports activities funded by the grant, the locations where adaptive sports activities were conducted, accounting of how the grant funds were used including the administrative and personnel expenses incurred by the grantee in carrying out the program and such expenses paid for using grant funds, description of all partnerships at the national and local levels and the programs carried out under such partnerships, and any changes in a grantee's program activities which result in deviations from the grant agreement. The interim final rule at § 77.19 requires grantees must maintain financial management systems that comply with applicable requirements established in 2 CFR Part 200.

Description of the need for information and proposed use of information: This information is needed to award initial grants and to award renewal grants to eligible entities.

Description of likely respondents: National Paralympic Committees, National Governing Bodies, Veterans Service Organizations, colleges and universities, hospitals, Paralympic Sport Clubs, Parks and Recreation Departments, and other qualified adaptive sport entities.

Estimated number of respondents per year: Initial Grants 100. Renewal Grants 50.

Estimated frequency of responses per year: Initial Grants 1. Renewal Grants 1.

Estimated total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden: 2625 hours.

Estimated average burden per response: Initial Grant 25 hours. Renewal Grants 10 hours.

Description of the need for information and proposed use of information: This information is needed to determine compliance with the requirements for a grant.

Description of likely respondents: National Paralympic Committees, National Governing Bodies, Veterans Service Organizations, colleges and universities, hospitals, Paralympic Sport Clubs, Parks and Recreation Departments, and other qualified adaptive sport entities.

Estimated number of respondents per year: 150.

Estimated frequency of responses per year: 1.

Estimated total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden: 300 hours.

Estimated average burden per response: 2 hours.

Description of the need for information and proposed use of information: This information is needed to determine compliance with the requirements for a grant.

Description of likely respondents: National Paralympic Committees, National Governing Bodies, Veterans Service Organizations, colleges and universities, hospitals, Paralympic Sport Clubs, Parks and Recreation Departments, and other qualified adaptive sport entities.

Estimated number of respondents per year: 150.

Estimated frequency of responses per year: 4.

Estimated total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden: 450 hours.

Estimated annual burden per response: 45 minutes.

The Acting Secretary hereby certifies that this interim final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. Due to demographic, economic, infrastructure, and many other factors, a large percentage of small adaptive sports entities do not have sufficient participants, programs and outreach to qualify as an eligible entity under Public Law 113-59. In regions where the disabled veteran population is small relative to participants needed in the entity's applicable adaptive sports areas of expertise, an adaptive sports entity faces constraints in developing a viable grant program. Therefore, the number of small adaptive sports entities involved will be few and their existing programs that meet threshold criteria for eligibility would indicate competence to conduct a viable adaptive sports grant program. There would be no economic impact on any of the eligible entities, as they are not required to provide matching funds to obtain the maximum grant allowance as established under 38 U.S.C. 521A. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a “significant regulatory action,” which requires review by OMB, unless OMB waives such review, as “any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.”

The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this interim final rule have been examined, and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at http://www.regulations.gov, usually within 48 hours after the rulemaking document is published. Additionally, a copy of the rulemaking and its impact analysis are available on VA's Web site at http://www1.va.gov/orpm/, by following the link for “VA Regulations Published.”

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule 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. This rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number and title for the program affected by this document is 64.034, Grants for Adaptive Sports Programs for Disabled Veterans and Disabled Members of the Armed Forces.

The Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Jose D. Riojas, Chief of Staff, approved this document on June 23, 2014 for publication.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, VA amends 38 CFR chapter I by adding part 77, to read as follows:

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

Table 1 lists the rules we are approving with the dates that they were adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

On June 26, 2013, EPA determined that the submittal for Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) Rules 74.13 and 74.24 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

There are previous versions of Rules 74.13 and 74.24 in the SIP. We approved earlier versions of Rule 74.13 into the SIP on 10/25/2005 (70 FR 61561), 4/19/2001 (66 FR 20086), and 2/12/1996 (61 FR 5288). We approved earlier versions of Rule 74.24 into the SIP on 10/25/2005 (70 FR 61561), 4/19/2001 (66 FR 20086), and 11/03/1997 (62 FR 59284). The VCAPCD adopted revisions to the SIP-approved versions of Rules 74.13 and 74.24 on 9/11/12 and CARB submitted them to us on 4/22/2013.

VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. The main purpose of the rule revisions is to set more stringent VOC limits for solvent cleaners. Rule 74.13 limits Reactive Organic Compound (ROC) content to 25 grams per liter (g/l) or requires solvent cleaner vapor pressure to be less than five millimeters of Mercury at 20 degrees Celsius. Rule 74.24 limits ROC content to 25 g/l. EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information about these rules.

Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document as well as each NO X or VOC major source in ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above (see sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f)), and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). The VCAPCD regulates an ozone nonattainment area classified as serious for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS (see 40 CFR Part 81.305), so Ventura must implement RACT for all major sources.

Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate enforceability and RACT requirements consistently include the following:

1. “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).

2. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).

3. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,” EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).

4. CTG for Control of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) from Coating at Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities EPA-453/R-97-004, December 1997.

5. 40 CFR part 63 Subpart GG—National Emission Standards for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities.

6. Control Techniques Guidelines for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Operations (Surface Coating), EPA, 61 FR 44050 (Tuesday, August 27, 1996).

7. 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart II—Volatile Organic HAP (VOHAP) Limits for Marine Coatings.

We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. According to the VCAPCD, there are no existing or anticipated sources in the District that would meet the Aerospace CTG or major source threshold of 25 tons per year of VOC. Therefore, Rule 74.13 is not required to meet RACT. The TSDs have more information on our evaluation.

The TSDs describe additional rule revisions that we recommend for the next time the local agency modifies the rules.

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving the submitted rules because we believe they fulfill all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register , we are simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rules. If we receive adverse comments by July 31, 2014, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective without further notice on September 2, 2014. This will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 2, 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. 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)).

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

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

Table 1 lists the rules we are approving with the dates that they were adopted by SJVUAPCD and submitted by the California Air Resource Board (CARB).

On March 28, 1995, the submittal for SJVUAPCD Rules 1040, 1050, 1070, and 1090 was deemed by operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

There are no previous versions of Rules 1040, 1050, 1070 and 1090 in the SIP.

Rule 1040 defines provisions of the California Health and Safety Code under which SJVUAPCD rules are enforced.

Rule 1050 explains the procedures for issuing an order of abatement, the rules governing hearings in the issuance of orders of abatement and the penalties for violating orders of abatement.

Rule 1070 outlines the district's authority in determining compliance with other District rules and regulations. It also explains that inspections shall be made by the enforcement agency for the purpose of obtaining information necessary to determine whether air pollution sources are in compliance with applicable rules and regulations.

Rule 1090 requires that any person or source operation comply with SJVUAPCD rules and regulations.

Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act), and must not relax existing requirements. (See section 110(a)(1)). These rules support some of the basic infrastructure SIP requirements described in section 110(a)(2) of the CAA, but do not impose any specific air pollution control or emission limitations, so we are not evaluating them with respect to Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) or other CAA requirements regarding SIP stringency.

Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate enforceability and other CAA requirements consistently include the following:

We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability and SIP relaxations. Our Technical Support Document (TSD) has more information on our evaluation.

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving the submitted rules because we believe they fulfill all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register , we are simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rules. If we receive adverse comments by July 31, 2014, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective without further notice on September 2, 2014. This will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP.

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 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

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 September 2, 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. 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)).

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

Codification is the process of placing a State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste management program into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Section 3006(b) of RCRA, as amended, allows the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to authorize State hazardous waste management programs to operate in lieu of the Federal hazardous waste management regulatory program. The EPA codifies its authorization of State programs in 40 CFR part 272 and incorporates by reference State statutes and regulations that the EPA will enforce under sections 3007 and 3008 of RCRA and any other applicable statutory provisions.

The incorporation by reference of State authorized programs in the CFR should substantially enhance the public's ability to discern the current status of the authorized State program and State requirements that can be Federally enforced. This effort provides clear notice to the public of the scope of the authorized program in each State.

Oklahoma initially received Final authorization effective January 10, 1985, (49 FR 50362) to implement its Base Hazardous Waste Management program. Subsequently, the EPA approved additional program revision applications effective on June 18, 1990 (55 FR 14280), November 27, 1990 (55 FR 39274), June 3, 1991 (56 FR 13411), November 19, 1991 (56 FR 47675), November 29, 1993 (58 FR 50854), December 21, 1994 (59 FR 51116), April 27, 1995 (60 FR 2699), March 14, 1997 (62 FR 12100), July 14, 1998 (63 FR 23673), November 23, 1998 (63 FR 50528), February 8, 1999 (63 FR 67800), March 30, 2000 (65 FR 16528), July 10, 2000 (65 FR 29981), March 5, 2001 (66 FR 28), June 9, 2003 (68 FR 17308), April 6, 2009 (74 FR 5994), May 6, 2011 (76 FR 18927), May 14, 2012 (77 FR 15273), and May 29, 2013 (78 FR 32161). The EPA first incorporated by reference Oklahoma's hazardous waste program effective December 13, 1993 (58 FR 52679), and updated the incorporation by reference effective July 14, 1998 (63 FR 23673), October 25, 1999 (64 FR 46567), October 27, 2003 (68 FR 51488), August 27, 2010 (75 FR 36546), July 16, 2012 (77 FR 29231), and October 9, 2012 (77 FR 46964). In this document, the EPA is revising Subpart LL of 40 CFR part 272 to include the recent authorization revision actions effective July 29, 2013 (78 FR 32161).

The purpose of this Federal Register document is to codify Oklahoma's base hazardous waste management program and its revisions through RCRA Cluster XXI. The EPA provided notices and opportunity for comments on the Agency's decisions to authorize the Oklahoma program, and the EPA is not now reopening the decisions, nor requesting comments, on the Oklahoma authorizations as published in the Federal Register notices specified in Section B of this document.

This document incorporates by reference Oklahoma's hazardous waste statutes and regulations and clarifies which of these provisions are included in the authorized and Federally enforceable program. By codifying Oklahoma's authorized program and by amending the Code of Federal Regulations, the public will be more easily able to discern the status of Federally approved requirements of the Oklahoma hazardous waste management program.

The EPA is incorporating by reference the Oklahoma authorized hazardous waste program in subpart LL of 40 CFR part 272. Section 272.1851 incorporates by reference Oklahoma's authorized hazardous waste statutes and regulations. Section 272.1851 also references the statutory provisions (including procedural and enforcement provisions) which provide the legal basis for the State's implementation of the hazardous waste management program, the Memorandum of Agreement, the Attorney General's Statements and the Program Description, which are approved as part of the hazardous waste management program under Subtitle C of RCRA.

The EPA retains its authority under statutory provisions, including but not limited to, RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013 and 7003, and other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions to undertake inspections and enforcement actions and to issue orders in authorized States. With respect to these actions, the EPA will rely on Federal sanctions, Federal inspection authorities, and Federal procedures rather than any authorized State analogues to these provisions. Therefore, the EPA is not incorporating by reference such particular, approved Oklahoma procedural and enforcement authorities. Section 272.1851(c)(2) of 40 CFR lists the statutory provisions which provide the legal basis for the State's implementation of the hazardous waste management program, as well as those procedural and enforcement authorities that are part of the State's approved program, but these are not incorporated by reference.

The public needs to be aware that some provisions of Oklahoma's hazardous waste management program are not part of the Federally authorized State program. These non-authorized provisions include:

(1) Provisions that are not part of the RCRA subtitle C program because they are “broader in scope” than RCRA subtitle C (see 40 CFR 271.1(i));

(2) Federal rules for which Oklahoma is not authorized, but which have been incorporated into the State regulations because of the way the State adopted Federal regulations by reference.

State provisions that are “broader in scope” than the Federal program are not part of the RCRA authorized program and the EPA will not enforce them. Therefore, they are not incorporated by reference in 40 CFR part 272. For reference and clarity, 40 CFR 272.1851(c)(3) lists the Oklahoma regulatory provisions which are “broader in scope” than the Federal program and which are not part of the authorized program being incorporated by reference. “Broader in scope” provisions cannot be enforced by the EPA; the State, however, may enforce such provisions under State law.

Oklahoma has adopted but is not authorized for the Federal rules published in the Federal Register on October 5, 1990 (55 FR 40834); February 1, 1991 (56 FR 3978); February 13, 1991 (56 FR 5910); April 2, 1991 (56 FR 13406); May 1, 1991 (56 FR 19951); December 23, 1991 (56 FR 66365); June 29, 1995 (60 FR 33912), May 26, 1998 (63 FR 28556), June 14, 2005 (70 FR 34538), August 1, 2005 (70 FR 44150); and December 19, 2008 (73 FR 77954). Therefore, these Federal amendments included in Oklahoma's adoption by reference at 252:205-3-2(b) through 252:205-3-2(m) of the Oklahoma Administrative Code, are not part of the State's authorized program and are not part of the incorporation by reference addressed by this Federal Register document.

With respect to any requirement pursuant to the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) for which the State has not yet been authorized, the EPA will continue to enforce the Federal HSWA standards until the State is authorized for these provisions.

The EPA is not amending 40 CFR part 272 to include HSWA requirements and prohibitions that are implemented by the EPA. Section 3006(g) of RCRA provides that any HSWA requirement or prohibition (including implementing regulations) takes effect in authorized and not authorized States at the same time. A HSWA requirement or prohibition supersedes any less stringent or inconsistent State provision which may have been previously authorized by the EPA (50 FR 28702, July 15, 1985). The EPA has the authority to implement HSWA requirements in all States, including authorized States, until the States become authorized for such requirement or prohibition. Authorized States are required to revise their programs to adopt the HSWA requirements and prohibitions, and then to seek authorization for those revisions pursuant to 40 CFR part 271.

Instead of amending the 40 CFR part 272 every time a new HSWA provision takes effect under the authority of RCRA section 3006(g), the EPA will wait until the State receives authorization for its analog to the new HSWA provision before amending the State's 40 CFR part 272 incorporation by reference. Until then, persons wanting to know whether a HSWA requirement or prohibition is in effect should refer to 40 CFR 271.1(j), as amended, which lists each such provision.

Some existing State requirements may be similar to the HSWA requirement implemented by the EPA. However, until the EPA authorizes those State requirements, the EPA can only enforce the HSWA requirements and not the State analogs. The EPA will not codify those State requirements until the State receives authorization for those requirements.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and therefore this action is not subject to review by OMB. This rule incorporates by reference Oklahoma's authorized hazardous waste management regulations and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). Because this rule merely incorporates by reference certain existing State hazardous waste management program requirements which the EPA already approved under 40 CFR part 271, and with which regulated entities must already comply, it 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).

This action will not have substantial direct effects 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely incorporates by reference existing authorized State hazardous waste management program requirements without altering the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established by RCRA. This action also does not have Tribal implications within the meaning of Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000).

This action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant and it does not make decisions based on environmental health or safety risks. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

The requirements being codified are the result of Oklahoma's voluntary participation in the EPA's State program authorization process under RCRA Subtitle C. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, the EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. The EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this document 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 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).

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 272 is amended as follows: