The Agency published a document (FR Doc. 2014-16043) in the Federal Register of July 9, 2014, (79 FR 38747), amending its regulations to provide that a beneficiary designation form is valid only if it is received by the TSP record-keeper not more than one year after the date of the participant's signature. This document simply corrects the authority citation and paragraph designations provided in FR Doc. 2014-16043.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Agency corrects 5 CFR chapter VI by making the following correcting amendments:

On August 7, 1992, the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) published the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (OGE Standards). See 57 FR 35006-35067, as corrected at 57 FR 48557, 57 FR 52483, and 60 FR 51167, with additional grace period extensions for certain existing provisions at 59 FR 4779-4780, 60 FR 6390-6391, and 60 FR 66857-66858. The OGE Standards, codified at 5 CFR part 2635, effective February 3, 1993, established uniform standards of ethical conduct that apply to all executive branch personnel. Section 2635.105 of the OGE Standards authorizes an agency, with the concurrence of OGE, to adopt agency-specific supplemental regulations that are necessary to properly implement its ethics program. In 1995, the Department of the Treasury (Treasury), with OGE's concurrence, established the Supplemental Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Treasury, which included additional rules for Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms employees. See 60 FR 22249-22255 (May 5, 1995), as codified at 5 CFR part 3101. In 1997, the Department of Justice (DOJ), with OGE's concurrence, established the Supplemental Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Department of Justice (Supplemental Standards). See 62 FR 23941-23943 (May 2, 1997), as codified at 5 CFR part 3801.

On November 25, 2002, the President signed into law the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135. Title XI, Subtitle B, Section 1111 of the Act which was effective January 24, 2003, transferred the “authorities, functions, personnel, and assets” of the Treasury's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (the Bureau), to DOJ, with the exception of certain enumerated authorities retained by Treasury. Section 1111 of the Act (later transferred in relevant part and codified at 28 U.S.C. 599A) further provided that the Bureau retains its identity as a distinct entity within DOJ known as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). The authorities retained by Treasury include the administration and enforcement of chapters 51 and 52 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, sections 4181 and 4182 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and title 27 of the United States Code. The functions retained by Treasury became the responsibility of a new Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB).

As part of the separation, title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) was reorganized into two chapters, chapter I for TTB and chapter II for ATF. Reorganization of Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, 68 FR 3744 (Jan. 24, 2003). The regulations were divided between the two chapters based upon the respective authorities of Treasury and DOJ.

At that time, DOJ did not amend its Supplemental Standards to incorporate Treasury's existing rules for employees of the Bureau. However, pursuant to section 1111(c)(1) of the Homeland Security Act, and 28 U.S.C. 599A(c)(1), the authorities and functions of the Bureau that the Secretary of the Treasury previously exercised when the Bureau was part of Treasury have been transferred to DOJ. Accordingly, the restrictions of section 3101.105 have continued to be applicable to ATF employees pursuant to this transfer of authorities. However, DOJ has now determined that it is appropriate to incorporate in its Supplemental Standards Treasury's existing regulatory restrictions for ATF employees at 5 CFR 3101.105.

This final rule incorporates the existing provisions of 5 CFR 3101.105 into the Supplemental Standards in a new section 3801.107. This action carries forward the prohibited financial interests rule that had initially been adopted when ATF was part of Treasury, and that has continued to be applicable to ATF employees after the transfer of ATF to DOJ. Now that ATF is part of DOJ, DOJ has determined that continuing to prohibit ATF employees from having financial interests in the alcohol, tobacco, firearms, or explosives industries is necessary for successful implementation of its ethics program. Prohibiting ATF employees from having financial interests in entities that are regulated or inspected by or closely connected to the work of ATF is important for three reasons: (1) To maintain ATF's appearance of impartiality and objectivity in the execution of its regulatory and law enforcement functions; (2) to eliminate a regulated entity's concern that sensitive information provided to ATF might be misused for private gain; and (3) to avoid the large-scale recusal of employees from official matters resulting in an inability of ATF to fulfill its mission.

Accordingly, the final rule incorporates those applicable ethics standards directly into the DOJ regulations. However, the new language in section 3801.107(b) regarding the granting of regulatory waivers omits reference to a provision of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 7214(b)) that no longer applies to ATF employees and substitutes new clarifying language that gives the agency designee authority to grant a written waiver of the prohibition in paragraph (a) based on a determination that the waiver is not inconsistent with law and the OGE Standards, and otherwise meets the waiver standard previously established in section 3101.105(b).

Additionally, this final rule will designate ATF as a separate agency for purposes of applying the gifts and the teaching, speaking, and writing provisions of the OGE Standards. Pursuant to section 2635.203(a) of the OGE Standards, an executive department, with the concurrence of OGE, may designate any component that exercises distinct and separate functions as a separate agency for the purpose of applying the rules governing the solicitation or acceptance of gifts from prohibited sources or given because of official position. See 5 CFR 2635.201-2635.205. Pursuant to section 2635.807(a)(2)(ii) of the OGE Standards, any component so designated is also considered a separate agency for the purpose of applying the rules governing the receipt of compensation by an employee for teaching, speaking, and writing. DOJ has determined that ATF exercises distinct and separate functions for purposes of applying sections 2635.201-2635.205 and section 2635.807(a)(2)(ii).

This rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” section 1(b), Principles of Regulation and in accordance with Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review,” section 1(b) General Principles of Regulation and section 6 Retrospective Analyses of Existing Rules. This rule is limited to agency organization, management, or personnel matters as described by Executive Order 12866, section 3(d)(3) and, therefore, is not a “regulation” or “rule” as defined by that Executive Order 12866.

This rule will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, nor will it 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 government or communities. Accordingly, this rule is not an “economically significant” rulemaking as defined in Executive Order 12866.

Notice and comment rulemaking is not required for this final rule. Under the APA, “rules of agency organization, procedure or practice,” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A), that do not “affect individual rights and obligations,” Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199, 232 (1974), are exempt from the general notice and comment requirements of section 553. See JEM Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 22 F.3d 320, 326 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (section 553(b)(3)(A) applies to “agency actions that do not themselves alter the rights or interests of parties, although [they] may alter the manner in which the parties present themselves or their viewpoints to the agency”). The revisions to the regulations in 5 CFR part 3801 are purely a matter of agency organization, procedure, and practice that will not affect individual rights and obligations. Furthermore, internal delegations of authority are subject to an exception under the APA for “rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice.”

The Attorney General, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), has reviewed this rule and, by approving it, certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it pertains to personnel and administrative matters affecting the Department. Further, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required for this final rule because the Department was not required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for this matter.

This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.

This rule 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. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, Federalism, the Department has determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions are necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.

This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 804. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.

This action pertains to agency management, personnel, and organization and does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. Accordingly, it is not a rule for purposes of the reporting requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801.

This proposed rule does not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

The Department of Justice has determined that this action pertains to agency management and, accordingly, is not a “rule” as that term is used by the Congressional Review Act (CRA), (Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, (SBREFA)). Therefore, the reports to Congress and the General Accounting Office specified by section 801 of SBREFA are not required.

The author of this document is Denise R. Brown, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Department of Justice, with the concurrence of the Office of Government Ethics, is amending 5 CFR part 3801 as follows:

Table of Contents I. Procedural Background II. Background III. Discussion of Changes IV. Voluntary Consensus Standards V. Agreement State Compatibility VI. Plain Writing VII. Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement IX. Regulatory Flexibility Certification X. Regulatory Analysis XI. Backfitting and Issue Finality XII. Congressional Review Act I. Procedural Background

This rule is limited to the changes contained in Amendment No. 2 to CoC No. 1030 and does not include other aspects of the Transnuclear, Inc. NUHOMS® HD Cask System design. The NRC is using the “direct final rule procedure” to issue this amendment because it represents a limited and routine change to an existing CoC that is expected to be noncontroversial. Adequate protection of public health and safety continues to be ensured. The amendment to the rule will become effective on October 14, 2014. However, if the NRC receives a significant adverse comment by September 2, 2014 in response to the companion proposed rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register , then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws this action and will subsequently address the comments received in a final rule as a response to the companion proposed rule. Absent significant modifications to the proposed revisions requiring republication, the NRC will not initiate a second comment period on this action.

A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:

(1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:

(a) The comment causes the NRC staff to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;

(b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or

(c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC staff.

(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.

(3) The comment causes the NRC staff to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule, CoC, or TSs.

For detailed instructions on filing comments, please see the companion proposed rule published in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register .

The NRC is amending its spent fuel storage regulations by revising the Transnuclear, Inc. NUHOMS® HD Cask System listing within the “List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks” to include Amendment No. 2 to CoC No. 1030. Amendment No. 2 includes changes to: Increase the soluble boron concentration to 2,800 ppm for criticality safety analyses and add maximum enrichments for Combustion Engineering 14x14 fuel assemblies that were previously unauthorized for storage; improve clarity of certain TSs, such as heat load zoning configuration, fuel qualification table, fuel class, and intact fuel/damaged fuel definitions; allow for increased fuel assembly weight by 25 pounds; revise the definition of control components; include blended low enriched uranium fuel material; increase shielding effectiveness of the horizontal storage module by adding optional dose reduction hardware; update licensing basis documents based on recent experience with ongoing licensing actions involving other NUHOMS® systems; and accommodate installation practices for a limiting gap size that was evaluated based on dose rates. In addition, the amendment makes editorial changes to the TSs.

Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982, as amended, requires that “the Secretary [of the Department of Energy] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission.” Section 133 of the NWPA states, in part, that “[the Commission] shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under Section 219(a) [sic: 218(a)] for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.”

To implement this mandate, the Commission approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule which added a new subpart K in part 72 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) entitled “General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites” (55 FR 29181; July 18, 1990). This rule also established a new subpart L within 10 CFR part 72 entitled, “Approval of Spent Fuel Storage Casks,” which contains procedures and criteria for obtaining NRC approval of spent fuel storage cask designs. The NRC subsequently issued a final rule on December 11, 2006 (71 FR 71463), that approved the NUHOMS® HD Cask System design and added it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in 10 CFR 72.214 as CoC No. 1030.

On September 28, 2012, Transnuclear Inc. submitted a request to the NRC to amend CoC No. 1030. Transnuclear, Inc. supplemented its request on the following dates: December 20, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12356A391) and July 25, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13210A074). Specifically, Transnuclear, Inc. requested changes to (1) increase the soluble boron concentration to 2,800 ppm for criticality safety analyses and add maximum enrichments for Combustion Engineering 14x14 fuel assemblies that were previously unauthorized for storage; (2) improve clarity of certain TSs, such as heat load zoning configuration, fuel qualification table, fuel class, and intact fuel/damaged fuel definitions; (3) allow for increased fuel assembly weight by 25 pounds; (4) revise the definition of control components; (5) include blended low enriched uranium fuel material; (6) increase shielding effectiveness of the horizontal storage module by adding optional dose reduction hardware; (7) update licensing basis documents based on recent experience with ongoing licensing actions involving other NUHOMS® systems; and (8) accommodate installation practices for a limiting gap size that was evaluated based on dose rates. In addition, the amendment makes editorial changes to the TSs.

As documented in the SER (ADAMS Accession No. ML13325B118), the NRC staff performed a detailed safety evaluation of the proposed CoC amendment request. There are no significant changes to cask design requirements in the proposed CoC amendment. Considering the specific design requirements for each accident condition, the design of the cask would prevent loss of containment, shielding, and criticality control. If there is no loss of containment, shielding, or criticality control, the environmental impacts would be insignificant. This amendment does not reflect a significant change in design or fabrication of the cask. In addition, any resulting occupational exposure or offsite dose rates from the implementation of Amendment No. 2 would remain well within the 10 CFR part 20 limits. Therefore, the proposed CoC changes will not result in any radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts that significantly differ from the environmental impacts evaluated in the environmental assessment supporting the July 18, 1990, final rule. There will be no significant change in the types or significant revisions in the amounts of any effluent released, no significant increase in the individual or cumulative radiation exposure, and no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents.

This direct final rule revises the NUHOMS® HD Cask System listing in 10 CFR 72.214 by adding Amendment No. 2 to CoC No. 1030. The amendment consists of the changes previously described, as set forth in the revised CoC and TSs. The revised TSs are identified in the SER.

The amended NUHOMS® HD cask design, when used under the conditions specified in the CoC, the TSs, and the NRC's regulations, will meet the requirements of 10 CFR part 72; therefore, adequate protection of public health and safety will continue to be ensured. When this direct final rule becomes effective, persons who hold a general license under 10 CFR 72.210 may load spent nuclear fuel into NUHOMS® HD Cask Systems that meet the criteria of Amendment No. 2 to CoC No. 1030 under 10 CFR 72.212.

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this direct final rule, the NRC will revise the NUHOMS® HD Cask System design listed in 10 CFR 72.214, “List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks.” This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable requirements.

Under the “Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs” approved by the Commission on June 30, 1997, and published in the Federal Register on September 3, 1997 (62 FR 46517), this direct rule is classified as Compatibility Category “NRC.” Compatibility is not required for Category “NRC” regulations. The NRC program elements in this category are those that relate directly to areas of regulation reserved to the NRC by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the provisions of 10 CFR. Although an Agreement State may not adopt program elements reserved to the NRC, it may wish to inform its licensees of certain requirements via a mechanism that is consistent with the particular State's administrative procedure laws, but does not confer regulatory authority on the State.

The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1988 (63 FR 31883).

The action is to amend 10 CFR 72.214 to revise the Transnuclear, Inc. NUHOMS® HD Cask System listing within the “List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks” to include Amendment No. 2 to CoC No. 1030.

Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the NRC regulations in subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” the NRC has determined that this rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. The NRC has made a finding of no significant impact on the basis of this environmental assessment.

This direct final rule amends the CoC for the NUHOMS® HD Cask System design within the list of approved spent fuel storage casks that power reactor licensees can use to store spent fuel at reactor sites under a general license. Specifically, Transnuclear, Inc. requested changes to revise authorized contents to: increase the soluble boron concentration to 2,800 ppm for criticality safety analyses and add maximum enrichments for Combustion Engineering 14x14 fuel assemblies that were previously unauthorized for storage; improve clarity of certain TSs, such as heat load zoning configuration, fuel qualification table, fuel class, and intact fuel/damaged fuel definitions; allow for increased fuel assembly weight by 25 pounds; revise the definition of control components; include blended low enriched uranium fuel material; increase shielding effectiveness of the horizontal storage module by adding optional dose reduction hardware; update licensing basis documents based on recent experience with ongoing licensing actions involving other NUHOMS® systems; and accommodate installation practices for a limiting gap size that was evaluated based on dose rates. In addition, the amendment makes editorial changes to the TSs.

On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent nuclear fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. The potential environmental impact of using NRC-approved storage casks was initially analyzed in the environmental assessment for the 1990 final rule. The environmental assessment for this Amendment No. 2 tiers off of the environmental assessment for the July 18, 1990, final rule. Tiering on past environmental assessments is a standard process under the National Environmental Policy Act.

NUHOMS® HD Cask Systems are designed to mitigate the effects of design basis accidents that could occur during storage. Design basis accidents account for human-induced events and the most severe natural phenomena reported for the site and surrounding area. Postulated accidents analyzed for an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, the type of facility at which a holder of a power reactor operating license would store spent fuel in casks in accordance with 10 CFR part 72, include tornado winds and tornado-generated missiles, a design basis earthquake, a design basis flood, an accidental cask drop, lightning effects, fire, explosions, and other incidents.

Considering the specific design requirements for each accident condition, the design of the cask would prevent loss of containment, shielding, and criticality control. If there is no loss of containment, shielding, or criticality control, the environmental impacts would be insignificant. This amendment does not reflect a significant change in design or fabrication of the cask. There are no significant changes to cask design requirements in the proposed CoC amendment. In addition, any resulting occupational exposure or offsite dose rates from the implementation of Amendment No. 2 would remain well within the 10 CFR part 20 limits. Therefore, the proposed CoC changes will not result in any radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts that significantly differ from the environmental impacts evaluated in the environmental assessment supporting the July 18, 1990, final rule. There will be no significant change in the types or significant revisions in the amounts of any effluent released, no significant increase in the individual or cumulative radiation exposure, and no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents. The staff documented its safety findings in an SER which is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML13325B118.

The alternative to this action is to deny approval of Amendment No. 2 and end the direct final rule. Consequently, any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee that seeks to load spent nuclear fuel into the NUHOMS® HD Cask System in accordance with the changes described in proposed Amendment No. 2 would have to request an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, interested licensees would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC and the costs to each licensee. Therefore, the environmental impacts would be the same or less than the action.

Approval of Amendment No. 2 to CoC No. 1030 would result in no irreversible commitments of resources.

No agencies or persons outside the NRC were contacted in connection with the preparation of this environmental assessment.

The environmental impacts of the action have been reviewed under the requirements in 10 CFR part 51.

Based on the foregoing environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that this direct final rule entitled, “List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: NUHOMS® HD Cask System,” will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, the NRC has determined that an environmental impact statement is not necessary for this rule.

This rule does not contain any information collection requirements and, therefore, is not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). Existing requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Approval Number 3150-0132.

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a request for information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC certifies that this rule will not, if issued, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This direct final rule affects only nuclear power plant licensees and Transnuclear, Inc. These entities do not fall within the scope of the definition of small entities set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the NRC (10 CFR 2.810).

On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent nuclear fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. Any nuclear power reactor licensee can use NRC-approved cask designs to store spent nuclear fuel if it notifies the NRC in advance, the spent fuel is stored under the conditions specified in the cask's CoC, and the conditions of the general license are met. A list of NRC-approved cask designs is contained in 10 CFR 72.214. On December 11, 2006 (71 FR 71463), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 that approved the NUHOMS® HD Cask System design by adding it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in 10 CFR 72.214.

On September 28, 2012, and as supplemented on December 20, 2012, and July 25, 2013, Transnuclear, Inc., submitted an application to amend the NUHOMS® HD Cask System as described in Section III, “Discussion of Changes,” of this document.

The alternative to this action is to withhold approval of Amendment No. 2 and to require any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee seeking to load spent nuclear fuel into NUHOMS® HD Cask Systems under the changes described in Amendment No. 2 to request an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, each interested 10 CFR part 72 licensee would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC and the costs to each licensee.

Approval of the direct final rule is consistent with previous NRC actions. Further, as documented in the SER and the environmental assessment, the direct final rule will have no adverse effect on public health and safety or the environment. This direct final rule has no significant identifiable impact or benefit on other Government agencies. Based on this regulatory analysis, the NRC concludes that the requirements of the direct final rule are commensurate with the NRC's responsibilities for public health and safety and the common defense and security. No other available alternative is believed to be as satisfactory, and therefore, this action is recommended.

The NRC has determined that the backfit rule (10 CFR 72.62) does not apply to this direct final rule. Therefore, a backfit analysis is not required. This direct final rule revises CoC No. 1030 for the Transnuclear, Inc. NUHOMS® HD Cask System, as currently listed in 10 CFR 72.214, “List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks.” The revision consists of adding Amendment No. 2 to CoC No.1030, and Amendment No. 2 applies only to new casks fabricated and used under Amendment No. 2. These changes do not affect existing users of the NUHOMS® HD Cask System, and the current Amendment No. 1 continues to be effective for existing users. While current CoC users may comply with the new requirements in Amendment No. 2, this would be a voluntary decision on the part of current users. For these reasons, Amendment No. 2 to CoC No. 1030 does not constitute backfitting under 10 CFR 72.62, 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1), or otherwise represent an inconsistency with the issue finality provisions applicable to combined licenses in 10 CFR part 52. Accordingly, no backfit analysis or additional documentation addressing the issue finality criteria in 10 CFR part 52 has been prepared by the staff.

The Office of Management and Budget has not found this to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72.

Discussion

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-17, dated June 17, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variant) airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0488.

Bombardier has issued the following service information:

• Temporary Revision (TR) 604/38, dated June 16, 2014, to the Bombardier Challenger CL-604 Airplane Flight Manual, PSP 604-1; and

• TR 605/20, dated June 16, 2014, to the Bombardier Challenger CL-605 Airplane Flight Manual, PSP 605-1.

The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled “Airworthy Product” in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD based on a foreign authority's AD.

We have become aware that some operators have misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or other information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request the approval for an alternative method of compliance to the AD-required actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed the paragraph and retitled it “Contacting the Manufacturer.” This paragraph now clarifies that for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the FAA, TCCA, or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO).

The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature. The DAO signature indicates that the data and information contained in the document are TCCA-approved, which is also FAA-approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer that do not contain the DAO-authorized signature approval are not TCCA-approved, unless TCCA directly approves the manufacturer's message or other information.

This clarification does not remove flexibility previously afforded by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This is also consistent with the recommendation of the Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in manufacturers' service instructions that are “Required for Compliance” with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an alternative method of compliance.

We also have decided not to include a generic reference to either the “delegated agent” or “DAH with State of Design Authority design organization approval,” but instead we have provided the specific delegation approval granted by the State of Design Authority for the DAH in the Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph of this AD.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because heat generated by the taxi lights and landing lights on the ground could reach the auto-ignition temperature of the fuel, which could potentially ignite any fuel or fumes present in the right-hand landing lights compartment. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2014-0488; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-141-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD based on those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this AD.

We estimate that this AD affects 169 airplanes 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. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $14,365, or $85 per product.

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 that 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.

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

History

On December 26, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish controlled airspace at Needles, CA (78 FR 78296). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. One comment was received from National Business Aviation Association in support of the proposal.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6006, 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 that Order.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E en route domestic airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface, the Needles VHF Omni-Directional Radio Range Tactical Air Navigation Aid (VORTAC), Needles, CA, to accommodate IFR aircraft under control of Los Angeles Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) by vectoring aircraft from en route airspace to terminal areas. This action is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations.

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

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 May 2009, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) requested comments on its Rule Concerning the Use of Prenotification Negative Option Plans (“Negative Option Rule” or “Rule”), as part of its comprehensive regulatory review program. 1 Specifically, the Commission sought comments on the Rule's costs and benefits, and on whether it should expand the Rule's scope to cover negative option features other than prenotification offers involving merchandise.

After considering the comments and recent legislative developments, the Commission has determined to retain the Rule without amendment. All commenters who addressed the issue support the Rule's current provisions. Furthermore, although commenters presented evidence of abusive negative option marketing beyond prenotification offers, the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act (“ROSCA”)  2 and the Commission's proposed amendments to the Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”), 3 discussed in section III.D below, likely address many of those abuses. Because the Commission has not seen the full effects ROSCA will have on the marketplace, and has yet to adopt and observe the effects of its proposed amendments to the TSR, it would be imprudent to expand the Rule's coverage at this time. 4

This document provides background, analyzes the comments, and further explains the Commission's decision.

This section provides background on the Commission's Negative Option Rule, its activities regarding the Rule, and ROSCA.

A “negative option” is any type of sales term or condition that allows a seller to interpret the customer's silence, or failure to take an affirmative action, as acceptance of an offer. The Rule regulates a specific type of negative option, the prenotification negative option plan for the sale of goods. In prenotification plans, consumers receive periodic announcements of upcoming merchandise shipments and have a set period to decline the shipment. Otherwise, the company sends them the merchandise. The periodic announcements and shipments can continue for an indefinite duration.

The Commission first promulgated the Rule (then titled the “Negative Option Rule”) in 1973 under the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 41 et seq., after finding that prenotification negative option marketers had committed unfair and deceptive marketing practices violative of Section 5 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 45. The Rule became effective on June 4, 1974.

For prenotification plans, the Rule requires sellers to clearly and conspicuously disclose the plan's material terms before consumers subscribe. 5 In addition, the Rule requires sellers to follow certain procedures, including: abiding by particular time periods during which sellers must send introductory merchandise and announcements identifying merchandise the seller plans to send; giving consumers a specified time period to respond to announcements; providing instructions for rejecting merchandise in announcements; and promptly honoring written requests to cancel from consumers who have met any minimum purchase requirements. 6

The Rule does not cover continuity plans or automatic renewals, and only covers trial conversions to the extent that they also qualify as prenotification plans. In continuity plans, consumers receive regular merchandise shipments or access to services until they cancel the agreement. In trial conversions, consumers receive products or services for a trial period at no charge or for a reduced price. If the consumers do not cancel before the end of the trial period, the product shipments or provision of services continue and consumers incur charges. In automatic renewals, a magazine seller, for example, may automatically renew consumers' subscriptions when they expire, unless consumers cancel their subscriptions.

In January 2007, the Commission hosted a workshop to analyze the marketing of goods and services through negative option offers. 7 The workshop featured consumer representatives, academics, and industry leaders who discussed the pros and cons of negative option offers and explored ways to make effective disclosures on the Internet.

Based on the workshop, in January 2009, the Commission issued a staff report. 8 Among other things, the report set forth five principles to guide industry in complying with Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”)  9 when making online negative option offers. They address: (1) The disclosure of material terms; (2) the appearance of disclosures; (3) the timing of disclosures; (4) obtaining consumers' affirmative consent; and (5) cancellation procedures.

In May 2009, the Commission published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“ANPR”) seeking comment on the Rule as part of the Commission's ongoing comprehensive regulatory review program. 10 The ANPR sought comment on the Rule's overall costs, benefits, necessity, and regulatory and economic impact. The ANPR also asked for comment on whether the Commission should expand the Rule to cover other types of negative option offers. 11

After the Commission's second comment period closed, Congress enacted ROSCA in December 2010 to address ongoing problems with online negative option marketing. This statute prohibits any person from charging or attempting to charge any consumer for goods or services sold in an Internet transaction through any negative option feature, 12 including trial conversions, continuity plans, and automatic renewals, unless the person: (1) Provides text that clearly and conspicuously discloses all material terms of the transaction before obtaining the consumer's billing information; (2) obtains a consumer's express informed consent before charging the consumer's account; and (3) provides simple mechanisms for a consumer to stop recurring charges. 13

Another ROSCA provision addresses offers made by, or on behalf of, a third-party seller during, or immediately following, a transaction with an initial merchant. 14 In connection with these transactions, ROSCA prohibits post-transaction third party sellers from charging or attempting to charge any consumer's financial account unless (1) before obtaining billing information, the seller clearly and conspicuously discloses the material terms of the offer; and (2) the seller receives the consumer's express informed consent by (A) obtaining from the consumer the full account number of the account to be charged and the consumer's name and address and a means to contact the consumer; and (B) requiring the consumer to perform an additional affirmative action indicating consent. 15 The Act also prohibits initial merchants from disclosing billing information to any post-transaction third party seller for use in any Internet-based sale of goods or services. 16

ROSCA provides that a violation of the Act shall be treated as a violation of a Commission trade regulation rule under Section 18 of the FTC Act. 17 Thus, the Commission may seek a wide variety of remedies for violations of ROSCA, including civil penalties under Section 5(m)(1)(A) of the FTC Act;  18 injunctive and equitable monetary relief under Section 13(b) of the Act;  19 and consumer redress, damages, and other relief under Section 19 of the Act. 20 States can enforce ROSCA as well. 21

Although Congress charged the Commission with enforcing ROSCA, it did not provide rulemaking authority under the Administrative Procedure Act. 22 Hence, the Commission would have to rely on its existing authority under Section 18 of the FTC Act to amend the Negative Option Rule. As the Commission has noted, “the current rulemaking procedures prescribed by Section 18 (often referred to as `Magnuson-Moss' rulemaking) are complex, cumbersome, and time-consuming, resulting in rulemaking proceedings lasting many years.”  23

The Commission received 14 comments in response to the ANPR during the initial comment period and an additional 99 after the Commission reopened the comment period. 24 Most were filed by individuals and firms, but the Commission also received comments from state and local law enforcement agencies as well as trade associations. Specifically, the Commission received comments from the Attorneys General of Colorado, Florida, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Vermont (Vermont also filed on behalf of 18 other states  25 ); as well as the Permitting, Licensing, and Consumer Protection Division of Broward County, Florida (“Broward County”). The Commission also received comments from the American Association of Law Libraries (“AALL”), 26 Direct Marketing Association (“DMA”), 27 Electronic Retailing Association (“ERA”), 28 Promotion Marketing Association (“PMA”), 29 and Magazine Publishers of America (“MPA”). 30 Commenters agreed that the Commission should retain the current Rule, but differed on whether it should expand the Rule's scope. Notwithstanding the evidence provided by law enforcement agencies, the Commission declines to expand the Rule because the intervening passage of ROSCA may sufficiently address the unfair and deceptive negative option practices described in the comments. Law enforcement agencies and one trade association supported expansion to cover other types of negative option features, presenting evidence of significant abuses that the Rule does not cover. Conversely, most trade associations argued against expansion, asserting that laws and guidance currently in place sufficiently protect consumers. To the extent ROSCA does not cover unfair and deceptive negative option marketing practices, the Commission can and will continue to address such practices using its other enforcement tools. In addition, the Commission will continue to look at negative option practices as the effects of ROSCA become clear. 31

All the commenters addressing the issue supported the Rule's current provisions. Indeed, none of the commenters advocated repealing the Rule or narrowing its scope. For example, Broward County stated that the Rule protects consumers by requiring disclosures that make them aware of their financial obligations and imposes only nominal costs. 32 The trade associations concurred. For example, DMA “believes that the current Negative Option Rule and the broader regulatory framework are working effectively, and strike the right balance between consumer protection and commerce.”  33 Similarly, ERA “strongly believes that the current regulatory structure for offers with an advance consent feature adequately balances the concerns of businesses, federal and state regulators, and consumers.”  34

In light of these comments, the Commission concludes that a continuing need exists for the Rule, and that costs imposed on businesses are reasonable.

The comments diverged sharply, however, on whether to expand the Rule. All of the state and local law enforcement agencies as well as AALL advocated expanding the Rule, while the rest of the trade associations opposed expansion as explained in section III.C below. 35

The state law enforcement agencies urged the Commission to expand the Rule to cover additional types of negative options, particularly trial conversion offers. They also favored covering the marketing of services and not just merchandise.

Mainly to expand the Rule to address all types of negative option marketing, each of these agencies also proposed adding a variety of new requirements and prohibitions, most of which would help ensure that sellers (1) disclose materials terms clearly and conspicuously;  36 (2) obtain informed, affirmative consent before charging or continuing to charge consumers;  37 or (3) maintain practices and procedures facilitating easy cancellation so that consumers can avoid charges for unwanted merchandise or services. 38 The specific proposals of the agencies vary, but with a few exceptions  39 fall into the three categories above. In addition, several individual comments advocated for similar proposals, such as expanding the Rule to cover other types of negative options and adding disclosure and notice requirements. 40

In support of their proposals, the agencies cited thousands of consumer complaints regarding negative options, 41 their own experience, 42 and consumer survey evidence  43 showing that many consumers are not aware of their enrollment in negative option plans. According to the agencies, consumers experience problems, including inadequate disclosures, the imposition of charges without the consumers' informed consent, difficult cancellation procedures, failure to honor cancellation requests, and trial offers where consumers forget they have consented to future charges. 44 The agencies argued that this evidence demonstrates a need for an expanded Rule to better protect consumers.

In addition, many agencies noted the increasing frequency of Internet negative option marketing. For example, Florida provided information about 47 negative option investigations from 1997 to 2009. Most of these involved Internet negative option marketing, including 18 that involved solely Internet marketing. In addition, 25 of the 28 investigations since 2005 involved Internet marketing. Sixteen of the 25 involved solely Internet marketing. 45 Washington noted that sellers frequently make free-to-pay offers on the Internet, and that previously such offers were made most frequently in telemarketing and direct mail. 46 Similarly, Broward County stated that most free trial conversion negative option sales transactions occur on the Internet. 47

AALL advocated expanding the scope of the Rule in several respects and adding a number of prohibitions and requirements, many of which resemble the proposals described above. Like the law enforcement agencies, it supported expanding the Rule to cover other types of negative option offers. It also advocated expanding the Rule to protect institutional consumers, such as law libraries, as well as individuals, and to cover online subscriptions and digital materials, such as e-books, podcasts, and applications.

AALL favored adding some of the same prohibitions and requirements favored by the state and local law enforcement agencies as well as a host of others to address negative option marketing by firms selling legal publications. For example, AALL urged the Commission to impose a maximum duration of no more than five years on negative option plans. 48 It also proposed a number of provisions to address the shipment of unordered publications and facilitate cancellation of unwanted negative option plans. 49

In support of its numerous proposals, AALL cited the experience of its members who have received unordered and unwanted legal publications. It also cited two Florida law enforcement actions involving negative option marketing practices affecting libraries.

Unlike AALL, the other four trade associations opposed any expansion. All argued that existing Commission authority and guidance, along with industry guidance, protect consumers adequately. They also argued that prescriptive regulation would harm consumers.

DMA urged the Commission “to avoid unnecessary regulation that would limit consumers' ability to learn about valuable goods and services, hinder innovation, or inhibit commerce, especially during these challenging economic times.”  50 It stated that robust industry self-regulation, coupled with existing FTC enforcement authority, effectively meets the needs of both consumers and businesses in this area. DMA also explained that its members are required to comply with Article 12 of its Guidelines for Ethical Business Practice, which addresses negative option marketing in detail. Non-complying members that fail to come into compliance face expulsion and may be reported to government regulators. 51

Similarly, ERA and PMA contended that (1) the Commission already possesses the enforcement tools necessary to protect consumers, including Section 5 of the FTC Act, the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 (“PRA”), 52 the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (“EFTA”), 53 the Negative Option Rule, and the TSR; (2) guidance documents published by the Commission provide adequate concrete guidance and direction to the industry; (3) the Commission should avoid a prescriptive approach that will deprive marketers of the flexibility to adapt to the rapidly evolving marketplace; and (4) the record does not indicate that deception results from advertising that complies with the above laws and guidance. 54 They also noted the existence of various industry self-regulatory programs that help prevent deception. 55 ERA pointed to its Advance Consent Guidelines, which cover the full range of negative option programs currently offered in the marketplace, including free trial offers, continuity plans, and automatic renewals. 56

Finally, MPA argued that the Commission's current guidance and enforcement ability sufficiently protect consumers. 57 Like DMA and ERA, MPA has developed guidance for its members on negative option marketing. 58 It too touted the benefits of negative option plans and the need for flexibility in responding to a rapidly changing marketplace.

The comments advocating expansion of the Rule argue convincingly that unfair, deceptive, and otherwise problematic negative option marketing practices continue to cause substantial consumer injury, despite determined enforcement efforts by the Commission and other law enforcement agencies. Indeed, negative option arrangements not covered by the Rule, such as trial conversions and continuity plans, have accounted for most of the Commission's recent enforcement activity in this area. 59 The record also indicates that Internet marketing represents a large and growing share of negative option marketing, particularly that involving free trial conversions. 60

Congress reached the same conclusion and, as a result, enacted ROSCA to protect consumers from deceptive online negative option practices. The additional enforcement tools provided by ROSCA likely will assist the Commission in stopping unlawful negative option practices in the significant and growing slice of the market involving the Internet. Due to the availability of these promising new tools and uncertainty regarding how ROSCA will affect the marketplace, the Commission declines to propose amendments to the Negative Option Rule at this time.

ROSCA addresses many of the concerns raised in the comments by requiring Internet sellers of any negative option type, including trial conversions, to disclose material terms, obtain informed consent, and provide simple mechanisms for consumers to stop recurring charges. 61 ROSCA also provides the Commission with civil penalty authority, thereby bolstering the Commission's enforcement tools in this area. 62

Furthermore, ROSCA provides additional protections for consumers who receive an offer from a third-party seller immediately after making an Internet purchase. Specifically, it requires that third-party sellers provide adequate disclosures and obtain affirmative consent and billing information directly from the consumer before imposing charges rather than charging the consumer using billing information obtained from the initial seller. 63

The Commission recognizes that ROSCA does not apply to negative option marketing in media other than the Internet. However, as noted above, the record indicates that Internet marketing represents a large and growing share of negative option marketing. Accordingly, the Commission can and will continue to challenge deceptive or unfair negative option practices as needed under the Negative Option Rule, Section 5 of the FTC Act, the TSR, EFTA, 64 and the PRA, 65 and will consider whether changes in the marketplace warrant reevaluation of the Commission's rules as they apply to negative option marketing in specific contexts.

The TSR, like ROSCA, addresses many of the negative option abuses identified by the comments. For example, the Commission previously addressed trial conversions and other negative option marketing in the context of outbound telemarketing by amending the TSR in 2003. 66 In addition, the Commission recently proposed amending the TSR to prohibit the use of payment methods often used in deceptive marketing, including of negative options, such as unsigned checks and remotely created “payment orders.”  67 Furthermore, in May 2013, the Commission announced that it plans to initiate a regulatory review of the TSR. 68 Commenters in that review can raise issues related to negative option marketing.

If the Commission concludes that ROSCA and its other enforcement tools do not provide adequate protection for consumers, it can then consider, based on a more complete record, whether and how to amend the Rule. The Commission can also consider whether to recommend that Congress amend ROSCA or take some other action. 69

We published a final rule document in the Federal Register of July 18, 2014, (79 FR 41883) extending the expiration date for the Temporary Pilot Program Setting the Time and Place for a Hearing Before an Administrative Law Judge in our regulations. In this final rule, we inadvertently had a timing issue with section 405.315(e) not being codified by the July 18, 2014 publication. Section 405.315(e) was codified on July 25, 2014. This document corrects the final regulation by revising the now codified section 405.315(e).

Accordingly, 20 CFR chapter III, part 405 is corrected by making the following correcting amendment:

FDA is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval actions for NADAs and ANADAs during June 2014 as listed in table 1. In addition, FDA is informing the public of the availability, where applicable, of documentation of environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and, for actions requiring review of safety or effectiveness data, summaries of the basis of approval (FOI Summaries) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). These public documents may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Persons with access to the Internet may obtain these documents at the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) FOIA Electronic Reading Room: http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofFoods/CVM/CVMFOIAElectronicReadingRoom/default.htm . Marketing exclusivity and patent information may be accessed in FDA's publication, Approved Animal Drug Products Online (Green Book) at: http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/Products/ApprovedAnimalDrugProducts/default.htm .

Also, the regulations are being amended in 21 CFR 558.76 to remove a cross-reference to a combination drug medicated feed which was removed in earlier corrections to part 558 (79 FR 10976, February 27, 2014). This amendment is being made to improve the accuracy of the regulations.

This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR parts 520, 522, 529, and 558 are amended as follows:

The United States Supreme Court held in United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 (1951), that the head of a federal agency may make the determination on his/her sole authority to produce documents and authorize employee's testimony in response to a subpoena or other demand for information. This regulation governs the Millennium Challenge Corporation's procedures for authorizing or denying such demands. MCC published a proposed regulation on May 9, 2014 in 79 FR 26659 and invited interested parties to submit comments. MCC received no comments. Accordingly, the proposed regulation is adopted as a final regulation with only minor editorial changes.

Section 382 of the Code provides that the taxable income of a loss corporation for a year following an ownership change may be offset by pre-change losses only to the extent of the section 382 limitation for such year. An ownership change occurs with respect to a corporation if it is a loss corporation on a testing date and, immediately after the close of the testing date, the percentage of stock of the corporation owned by one or more 5-percent shareholders has increased by more than 50 percentage points over the lowest percentage of stock of such corporation owned by such shareholders at any time during the testing period.

Pursuant to section 382(g)(4)(A), shareholders who own less than five percent of a loss corporation are aggregated and treated as a single 5-percent shareholder (a public group). In addition, new public groups may be created as a result of certain transactions under the segregation rules in the section 382 regulations. Any new public group is tracked separately from, and in addition to, the public group or groups that existed previously and is treated as a new 5-percent shareholder that increases its ownership interest in the loss corporation.

One particular segregation rule, which was imposed by § 1.382-2T(j)(3)(i) of the Temporary Income Tax Regulations until it was superseded, required segregation when an individual or entity that owned five percent or more of the loss corporation transferred an interest in the loss corporation to public shareholders. After the sale, stock owned by a public group that existed immediately before the sale was treated separately from the stock owned by the public group that acquired stock from the seller. This separate public group was treated as a new 5-percent shareholder. However, this rule was rendered inoperative by § 1.382-3(j)(13), part of a set of regulations published in TD 9638 [78 FR 62418] on October 22, 2013. Under the new regulation, no new public group is created on the transfer of stock to the public shareholders; instead, the transferred stock is treated as acquired proportionately by the public groups existing at the time of the transfer.

Notice 2010-2 (2010-2 IRB 251 (December 16, 2009)) (see § 1.601.601(d)(2)(ii)(B) of this chapter), provides guidance regarding the application of section 382 of the Code and other provisions of law to corporations whose instruments are acquired and disposed of by the Treasury pursuant to EESA. Notice 2010-2 relates to instruments acquired by Treasury pursuant to the following EESA programs: (i) The Capital Purchase Program for publicly-traded issuers; (ii) the Capital Purchase Program for private issuers; (iii) the Capital Purchase Program for S corporations; (iv) the Targeted Investment Program; (v) the Asset Guarantee Program; (vi) the Systemically Significant Failing Institutions Program; (vii) the Automotive Industry Financing Program; and (viii) the Capital Assistance Program for publicly-traded issuers. (These programs are collectively referred to as “Programs” in that Notice and in this preamble.)

Under Section III(G) of Notice 2010-2, a “Covered Instrument” is an instrument that is acquired by Treasury in exchange for an instrument that was issued to Treasury under the Programs, or is acquired by Treasury in exchange for another Covered Instrument. For most purposes of that Notice, a Covered Instrument is treated as though it had been issued directly to Treasury under the Programs.

Section III(E) of Notice 2010-2 provides the following rule to govern the sale by Treasury of stock of a corporation to public shareholders:

This rule was created to prevent a loss corporation from experiencing an owner shift when Treasury sells stock to public shareholders. By its terms, the rule relies on the assumption that the stock sale “creates a public group.” As explained earlier in this preamble, § 1.382-2T(j)(3)(i), before it was superseded, required creation of a new public group when a 5-percent shareholder sold stock in a loss corporation to public shareholders. However, under § 1.382-3(j)(13) as now in effect, such a transfer does not create a new public group.

The IRS and Treasury are concerned that the elimination of the segregation rule described earlier in this preamble may have unintentionally rendered inoperative the rule in Notice 2010-2 that protects a loss corporation from an owner shift when Treasury sells stock that it held pursuant to the Programs to public shareholders. To prevent this result, the temporary regulation modifies the effective date rule of TD 9638 to except from the changes to the segregation rules in that regulation the sale by the Treasury Department to public shareholders of any “Program Instrument” (an instrument issued pursuant to a Program or a Covered Instrument). As a result, a sale of stock by Treasury to the public will create a public group, and the rule of Section III(E) of Notice 2010-2 will continue to apply as intended. This provision will only affect the sale of a Program Instrument by the Treasury Department and will not affect the application of the segregation rule changes in TD 9638 to any other transactions involving stock of the corporations that participated in the Programs.

These regulations are necessary to provide corporations with immediate guidance regarding the continuing effect of Notice 2010-2 in light of the change to the segregation rules provided by TD 9638. Because of the need for immediate guidance, the IRS and the Treasury Department are issuing temporary regulations which are effective immediately.

It has also been determined that this temporary regulation is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. For the application of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), refer to the Special Analysis section of the preamble of the cross-referenced notice of proposed rulemaking published in this issue of the Federal Register . Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, these regulations have been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business.

The principal author of these regulations is Stephen R. Cleary of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Corporate). However, other personnel from the IRS and the Treasury Department participated in their development.

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:

This document contains amendments to the Procedure and Administration Regulations (26 CFR Part 301) under section 6707. On December 22, 2008, a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-160872-04) was published in the Federal Register (73 FR 78254) relating to the penalty under section 6707 of the Internal Revenue Code imposed on material advisors for failure to furnish information regarding reportable transactions (the proposed regulations). No comments were received from the public in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking. No public hearing was requested or held. The proposed regulations are adopted by this Treasury decision with revisions as discussed in this preamble.

Section 6707 was originally added to the Code by section 141(b) of the Tax Reform Act of 1984, Public Law 98-369, 98 Stat. 494 (July 18, 1984). At that time, section 6707 imposed a penalty for failing to timely register a tax shelter or for filing false or incomplete information with respect to the tax shelter registration. Section 301.6707-1T of the temporary regulations implementing the penalty was published shortly after section 6707 became law.

The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, Public Law 108-357, 118 Stat. 1418 (AJCA), was enacted on October 22, 2004. As amended by AJCA, section 6707 imposes a penalty on a material advisor required to file a return under section 6111(a) with respect to a reportable transaction who fails to timely file such a return or who files the return with false or incomplete information. Section 6707, as amended, is effective for returns due after October 22, 2004.

In 2007, the Treasury Department and the IRS issued Rev. Proc. 2007-21, 2007-1 CB 613 (February 26, 2007), (see § 601.601(d)(2)(ii)( b )), of this chapter, to provide procedures for requesting rescission of a penalty assessed under section 6707 for failure by a material advisor to disclose a reportable transaction and under section 6707A for failure by a taxpayer to disclose a reportable transaction. For each penalty, the revenue procedure provides the deadline by which a person must request rescission; the information the person must provide in the rescission request; where the person must submit the rescission request; and the rules governing requests for additional information from the person requesting rescission. In addition, the revenue procedure sets forth the factors that weigh in favor of and against granting rescission. For example, one factor described in the revenue procedure as weighing in favor of rescission of the section 6707 penalty is filing a Form 8918, “Material Advisor Disclosure Statement,” after the due date but before the taxpayer files a Form 8886, “Reportable Transaction Disclosure Statement,” identifying the material advisor as an advisor with respect to the transaction or before the IRS contacts the material advisor concerning the reportable transaction.

On December 22, 2008, proposed regulations implementing the penalty under section 6707 were published. The proposed regulations set forth the rules for application of the penalty under section 6707, including examples and relevant definitions such as the definition of incomplete information, false information, and when a failure is intentional so that the higher penalty with respect to listed transactions will apply. The proposed regulations also adopted the factors described in Rev. Proc. 2007-21 that will be considered when determining whether a request for rescission of a section 6707 penalty with respect to a non-listed reportable transaction will be granted. In addition, the proposed regulations generally restated the existing authority of the Secretary to prescribe procedures for requesting rescission by revenue procedure or other guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin. The proposed regulations did not address the procedures for requesting rescission in Rev. Proc. 2007-21, such as the deadline, the information provided, where to submit the request, and requests for additional information.

These regulations remove temporary regulations § 301.6707-1T (TD 7964), 49 FR 32712, which implement section 6707 as enacted in 1984. Amendments to section 6707 made by section 816 of AJCA render temporary regulations § 301.6707-1T obsolete.

The final regulations make several substantive changes to the proposed regulations. First, a new paragraph (iii) has been added under § 301.6707-1(a)(1)(B) regarding the penalty in the case of listed transactions. This new paragraph clarifies that only one section 6707 penalty will apply in the case of a transaction that is both a listed transaction and a reportable transaction other than a listed transaction, and that the penalty that applies in these cases is the higher penalty for listed transactions under § 301.6707-1(a)(1)(B). Section 301.6707-1(a)(1) of the final regulations has also been clarified to provide that if there is a failure with respect to more than one reportable or listed transaction, a material advisor will be subject to a separate penalty for each transaction.

In addition, § 301.6707-1(a)(2), which describes gross income derived from a transaction for purposes of determining the penalty in the case of a listed transaction, has been clarified to provide that only fees from a listed transaction for which the advisor is a material advisor are taken into account for purposes of computing the penalty. A new example 4 has been added to illustrate this clarification.

Finally, § 301.6707-1(e) of the proposed regulations is modified to provide additional guidance on rescission of the penalty under section 6707. Under Rev. Proc. 2007-21 and § 301.6707-1(e)(3)(i) of the proposed regulations, filing a Form 8918, “Material Advisor Disclosure Statement,” after the due date will be a factor weighing strongly in favor of rescission unless the form is filed after the taxpayer files a Form 8886, “Reportable Transaction Disclosure Statement,” identifying the material advisor as an advisor with respect to the transaction or after the IRS contacts the material advisor concerning the reportable transaction. The final regulations modify this rule to also consider whether circumstances indicate that the material advisor delayed filing the Form 8918, recognizing that the mere filing of a Form 8886 before filing the Form 8918, alone, is not indicative of whether rescission is appropriate. Accordingly, the final regulations provide that if a material advisor unintentionally failed to file a Form 8918, but then files a properly completed form with the IRS, that filing will be a factor that weighs in favor of rescission of the section 6707 penalty if the facts suggest that the material advisor did not delay filing the form until after the IRS had taken steps to identify that person as a material advisor with respect to that particular transaction. The final regulations further provide that the late filing will not weigh in favor of rescission if the facts and circumstances suggest that the material advisor delayed filing the Form 8918 until after the material advisor's client filed its Form 8886 (or successor form) disclosing the client's participation in the particular reportable transaction.

In addition, the final regulations clarify the language of the proposed regulations in a few other ways not intended to be substantive, including clarification of examples.

Sections 4.04, 4.05, and 4.06 of Revenue Procedure 2007-21, relating to the factors for rescission of the section 6707 penalty, are superseded as of July 31, 2014.

It has been determined that this Treasury Decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. The IRS has determined that sections 553(b) and (d) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) do not apply to these regulations and because the regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding these regulations was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business. No comments were received on the proposed regulations.

The principal author of these regulations is James G. Hartford of the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 301 is amended as follows:

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

On November 13, 2013, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled, “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Treasure Island, FL” in the Federal Register (78 FR 67999). We received no comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

The Treasure Island Causeway Bridge crosses the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway at mile 119.0, Treasure Island, Pinellas County, Florida. This change would reduce the vehicle traffic back-ups caused by the opening of the bridge while providing for the reasonable needs of navigation.

The Treasure Island Bridge is a double-leaf bascule bridge that provides a vertical clearance of 21 feet in the closed position.

The City of Treasure Island requested a change to the Treasure Island Causeway Bridge regulation due to an increase in vehicle traffic in this area. Based on the bridge logs, this bridge opens on average less than twice an hour on signal. Fewer scheduled openings at regular intervals between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. would reduce the vehicle traffic back-ups caused by the opening of the bridge.

The Coast Guard provided a comment period of 90 days and no comments were received. No changes have been made to the proposed rule.

The current operating regulation governing the Treasure Island Causeway Bridge at 33 CFR 117.267(g) was for the old bridge which required the bridge to open four times per hour on the quarters between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. and to open on signal if at least ten minutes advance notice was given between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. However, since the old bridge was replaced, the new bridge has been operating under 33 CFR 117.5 which requires the bride to open on signal. This final rule allows the bridge to open three times an hour during the week and twice an hour on the weekends which will reduce vehicle traffic congestion through this area by requiring less frequent openings. The Coast Guard does not anticipate longer bridge opening periods due to an accumulation of vessels, since the bridge currently opens less than twice an hour on average.

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 Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.

This action will have a minor impact on vessels transiting the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway in the vicinity of Treasure Island, Florida as vessels will still be able to transit the bridge on specific intervals and this action will still meet the reasonable needs of navigation. This action is designed to improve vehicle traffic flow in downtown Treasure Island.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This bridge generally does not open but two to three times an hour on a regular basis. Placing a regulation on this bridge, reducing these openings, will not unreasonably disrupt vessels transiting the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway in this area.

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

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it 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 might 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 guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves changing the open on demand bridge operating schedule to three times an hour Monday through Friday and twice an hour on Saturday, Sunday and Federal holidays and will meet the reasonable needs of navigation. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.

Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and an 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 Coast Guard was made aware of the necessary Bayou Blue Pontoon Bridge repairs on May 6, 2014. The Coast Guard reviewed the details for the necessary bridge repairs and determined that additional safety measures are necessary during these repairs to maintain safety of navigation. Completing the full NPRM process would be contrary to public interest as it would delay the immediate action needed to protect the general public, vessel and tows from potential hazards associated with the repairs of the Bayou Blue Pontoon Bridge, Mile Marker 49.8, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), West of the Harvey Locks (WHL). Additionally, completing the NPRM process is impracticable and it would unnecessarily delay the bridge repairs.

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 . Publishing a NPRM and delaying its effective date would be contrary to public interest since immediate action is needed to protect the general public, vessel and tows from hazards associated with the repairs of the Bayou Blue Pontoon Bridge, Mile Marker 49.8, GIWW, WHL.

The Coast Guard received notice on May 6, 2014, that the construction and repair work on the Bayou Blue, LA State Route 316, Pontoon Bridge, Mile Marker 49.8, GIWW, WHL, to repair the bridge to better serve the maritime commerce will continue through mid 2014. To protect the general public, vessels and tows from destruction, loss or injury due to the hazards associated with these construction operations in and around the waterways, the Coast Guard is establishing this temporary final safety zone which will continue through Aug. 10, 2014.

The legal basis and authorities for this rulemaking establishing a safety zone are found in 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, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish and define regulatory safety zones.

The purpose of this safety zone is to provide additional safety measures for persons and vessels transiting in and through a specified area on the waterway and to protect life and property during the construction and repair operations on the Bayou Blue, LA State Route 316, Pontoon Bridge, Mile Marker 49.8, GIWW, WHL. There will be a work barge, support vessels and personnel present in the channel associated with the construction and repair operation. This operation poses significant safety hazards to both vessels and mariners operating in the vicinity of the Bayou Blue, LA State Route 316, Pontoon Bridge, Mile Marker 49.8, GIWW, WHL.

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the GIWW extending from Mile Marker 49.0 to Mile Marker 50.0, bank to bank, WHL, Terrebonne Parish, LA. This Safety Zone is needed to protect the general public, vessels and tows from destruction, loss or injury due to repairs of the Bayou Blue Pontoon Bridge and associated hazards.

The COTP Morgan City or a designated representative will inform the public through Broadcast Notice to Mariners of schedule changes in the construction work and changes in effective dates and times for the safety zone. At all times, vessels and tows transiting between GIWW Mile Markers 49.0 to 50.0, WHL, are required to proceed at slowest safe speed to minimize wakes until construction is completed or August 10, 2014, whichever occurs earlier. In order to facilitate repairs, the following waterway schedule will be implemented Mondays through Fridays beginning June 23, 2014, and continuing through August 10, 2014. From 6:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. there will be a restricted clearance of 40 feet limiting access for all transits with the exception of small tows less than 40 feet wide and small boats. From 10:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. the waterway will be open to all tows with eastbound traffic allowed to transit first, followed by westbound traffic. From 1:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. there will be a restricted clearance of 40 feet limiting access for all transits with the exception of small tows less than 40 feet and small boats. Outside of the above schedule and on weekends, mariners will be able to transit through the work zone unrestricted. Additionally, no waterway restrictions will occur during the following holidays: Independence Day (July 4, 2014). Work to repair the fender will be performed on a crane barge staged in the channel during the closure schedule. All mariners are to contact the bridge operator on VHF-FM Channel 13 or at telephone 985-857-3666 in advance of arriving at the bridge for clearance and passing instructions. Once cleared for passage, mariners should exercise extreme caution and transit through the bridge at the slowest safe speed.

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

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

The safety zone listed in this rule will only restrict vessel traffic during construction and repair operations and enforcement periods are short in duration. The effect of this regulation will not be a significant regulatory action because: (1) This rule will only affect vessel traffic for short durations of time; (2) vessels may request permission from the HWY 316 bridge operator on VHF-FM Channel 13 or at telephone 985-857-3666 to deviate from this rule; and (3) the impacts on routine navigation are expected to be minimal due to scheduled periods without channel restrictions. Notifications to the marine community will be made through Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners. These notifications will allow the public to plan operations around the affected area and enforcement periods.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit in the affected portions of the GIWW in the vicinity of the Bayou Blue, LA State Route 316, Pontoon Bridge MM 49.8 WHL. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The zone is limited in size, enforcement periods are of short duration and vessel traffic may request permission from the COTP Morgan City or a designated representative to deviate from the safety zone.

If you are a small business entity and are significantly affected by this regulation, please contact MST1 Isaac Chavalia, Marine Safety Unit Houma, at (985) 850-6456.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. The safety zone provides safety for the public while the Bayou Blue, LA State Route 316, Pontoon Bridge MM 49.8 WHL is refurbished. 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 Department gives notice that Part 215 of Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations is repealed in conformity with the Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2014, Public Law 113-76, 128 Stat. 5 (January 17, 2014) and the Agricultural Act of 2014, Public Law 113-79, 128 Stat. 649 (February 7, 2014). Further, technical amendments are made to update the legislative authority provision for Part 218 of Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations and to include a statutory prohibition contained in the referenced legislation in 36 CFR 218.23(a). This rulemaking is ministerial in nature.

In 1992, Congress enacted the Appeals Reform Act (16 U.S.C. 1612 note) (ARA) directing the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a notice and comment process for certain Forest Service projects and activities and modify the agency's voluntarily provided, post-decisional administrative appeal procedures concerning such projects. Implementing regulations were promulgated in 1993 (58 FR 58904) and subsequently revised in 2003 (68 FR 33582). The 1993 and 2003 rulemakings directed that project or activity decisions that had been categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement were exempt from the regulatory procedures. That Department's statutory interpretation set forth in the regulations was the subject of litigation. See, for example, Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488 (2009); Wilderness Society v. Rey, 622 F.3d 1251 (9th Cir. 2010); Wildlaw v. United States Forest Service, 471 F.Supp.2d 1221 (M.D. Ala. 2007).

On March 19, 2012, the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of California issued a nationwide injunction permanently enjoining the Forest Service from implementing 36 CFR 215.4(a) and 215.12(f) (concerning categorically excluded projects). The United States appealed that ruling. In response to the injunction, the Chief of the Forest Service instructed all units of the National Forest System to refrain from applying Sections 215.4(a) and 215.12(f) and to provide notice, comment, and appeal opportunities for all projects and activities implementing forest plans that are documented in a decision memo, decision notice, or record of decision. In addition, Line Officers were instructed to write decision memos for any proposed action or activity that seeks to authorize the sale of timber, and to offer the opportunity for notice, comment, and appeal on these proposed actions.

Just prior to the District Court's ruling, Congress enacted Section 428 of the Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2012, Public Law 112-74 (December 23, 2011) (2012 Act) superseding the 1993 ARAs administrative review process. Specifically, Congress directed the Secretary to promulgate new regulations implementing a predecisional objection process exclusively for projects and activities documented with a Record of Decision or Decision Notice in lieu of the ARA process. The Secretary published regulations implementing the 2012 Act on March 27, 2013 (78 FR 18481). In light of ongoing judicial and legislative processes, the Secretary reserved taking action concerning the supplanted provisions in the ARA regulations or from addressing whether categorically excluded projects should be included within the new predecisional objection process.

On January 17, 2014, the President signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, Public Law 113-76, 128 Stat. 5 (2014). Section 431 of that Act directs that the 1993 ARA and the 2012 Act shall not apply to any categorically excluded project or activity. The legislative history confirmed Congress' intention to return public involvement processes to the preexisting regulatory norm prior to the date of the District Court's injunction. The legislation recognizes and approves the Department's longstanding interpretation of the Appeals Reform Act in the Part 215 regulations and the Forest Service's other discrete mechanisms for providing for public participation in project development, including its agency National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures.

On February 7, 2014, the President signed into law the Agricultural Act of 2014, Public Law 113-79, 128 Stat. 649. Section 8006 of that Act: (1) Repeals the Appeal Reform Act in its entirety, and (2) repeats the admonition of the recently enacted fiscal year (FY) 2014 Appropriation Act that the predecisional objection process required under the 2012 Act shall not apply to any categorically excluded project or activity. The legislative history again confirms Congress' design to address the management challenge that became apparent following the nationwide injunction by repealing the underlying statute in order to ensure nonsignificant actions may promptly proceed.

As a result of these statutes, the Department has repealed Part 215 and amended Part 218 of Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations. As to Part 215, those regulations' sole function was to implement the now repealed 1992 Appeals Reform Act. With the passage of the 2012 Appropriation, FY 2014 Appropriation, and the Agricultural Act of 2014, it is indisputable that nothing remains to the ARA; its implementing regulations, thus, are defunct and obsolete. As to the Part 218 predecisional objection process, the Department has decided to update the authorities citation and replace the existing “reserved” proviso in 36 CFR 218.23(a) with the statutory prohibition of the FY 2014 Appropriation Act and Agricultural Act of 2014. No other changes to 36 CFR Part 218 are being undertaken at this time.

Congress has plenary authority to direct management of the National Forest System. The Department and Forest Service must faithfully execute all laws. The Department fully appreciates that Congress' instructions are mandatory, immediate, and intended to relieve the agency from any and all obligations under the ARA in order to expedite management activities.

In light of the new legislation and underlying lapse in operational authority, the Forest Service executed an orderly shutdown of Part 215 on March 5, 2014. Specifically, the Forest Service immediately ceased issuance of all notices pursuant to 36 CFR Part 215 and only accepted and conducted an appeal review and disposition where the legal notice of a decision memorandum was published in the newspaper of record on or prior to March 5, 2014. The Forest Service informed affected and interested persons of the legislative enactments and the orderly shutdown procedure.

Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a final rule without providing advance notice and an opportunity for public comment. The Department has determined that there is good cause for immediate rulemaking without prior proposal and opportunity for comment. The referenced Appropriation and Agriculture laws are mandatory and leave no substantive discretion concerning the matters addressed in this rulemaking. Further, the subject of a technical amendment was previously noticed and public comment accepted during the March 2013 revision of 36 CFR Part 218. Revision of the authority provision in Part 218 is similarly technical and necessarily ministerial. For the same reasons, the Department finds good cause that these regulations shall be effective immediately pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

This final rule repeals Part 215 and amends Part 218 of Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations governing administrative reviews of certain activities on National Forest System lands. Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 220.6(d)(2) exclude from documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement rules, regulations, or policies to establish servicewide administrative procedures, program processes, or instructions. The Department has determined that this final rule falls within this category of actions and that no extraordinary circumstances exist which require preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

This final rule has been reviewed under Department procedures and Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 on regulatory planning and review, as amended by E.O. 13422. It has been determined that this final rule is not significant. This final rule will not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy, nor will it adversely affect productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State or local governments. This final rule will not interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency, nor will it raise new legal or policy issues. Finally, this final rule will not alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of beneficiaries of those programs. Accordingly, this final rule is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866.

This final rule has been considered in light of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 602 et seq. ). This final rule repeals Part 215 and amends Part 218 of Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations governing administrative reviews of certain activities on National Forest System lands. The Department has determined that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined by that Act because this final rule will not impose record-keeping requirements on them; it will not affect their competitive position in relation to large entities; and it will not affect their cash flow, liquidity, or ability to remain in the market.

The Department has considered this final rule under the requirements of E.O. 13132 on federalism. The Department has determined that this final rule conforms with the federalism principles set out in this E.O.; will not impose any compliance costs on the States; and will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, the Department has determined that no further determination of federalism implications is necessary at this time.

This final rule does not have tribal implications per E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. Therefore, advance consultation with Tribes is not required in connection with the final rule.

The Department has analyzed the final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria in E.O. 12630 and has determined that this final rule does not pose the risk of a taking of protected private property.

The Department has reviewed this final rule under E.O. 12988 on civil justice reform. After adoption of this final rule, (1) all State and local laws and regulations that conflict with this final rule or that impede its full implementation will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this final rule; and (3) it will not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging its provisions.

Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Department has assessed the effects of this final rule on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This final rule will not compel the expenditure of $100 million or more by any State, local, or tribal government or anyone in the private sector. Therefore, a statement under section 202 of the Act is not required.

The Department has reviewed the final rule under E.O. 13211 of May 18, 2001, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply. The Department has determined that this final rule does not constitute a significant energy action as defined in the E.O.

This final rule does not contain any record-keeping or reporting requirements or other information collection requirements as defined in 5 CFR part 1320 that are not already required by law or not already approved for use. Accordingly, the review provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 do not apply to this final rule.

Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department hereby amends 36 CFR chapter II as follows:

1. Background

Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR part 262, in effect since 1977, govern payment of rewards, payments for information and evidence in furtherance of an investigation, impoundment of property, and removal of obstructions from National Forest System lands. On February 16, 1994, the Forest Service published a proposed rule to amend 36 CFR part 262 (59 FR 7880). A final rule was never promulgated. Most of the comments received on the 1994 proposal to amend part 262 involved the meaning of terms used and proposed revisions that would permit the Agency to remove objects that are an impediment or a safety hazard to users of National Forest System lands.

In 2008, the Agency renewed its efforts to amend 36 CFR part 262. In addition to reviewing the comments on the 1994 proposal, the Forest Service reviewed 36 CFR part 262 to determine its applicability in view of changing laws, resource conditions, and other factors affecting management of National Forest System lands. For example, the structure of the Forest Service's Law Enforcement and Investigations staff changed in 1994 to provide for the Director of Law Enforcement and Investigations Staff to report directly to the Chief, rather than to the former Deputy Chief for Administration position (now the Deputy Chief for Business Operations). Accordingly, the proposed rule vested the authority to make or approve payment of rewards at 36 CFR 262.2 and payments for information and evidence in furtherance of an investigation at 36 CFR 262.3 with the Director of the Law Enforcement and Investigations. The proposed rule also revised limits on maximum amounts and approval authority for payment of rewards.

The Agency published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (73 FR 41003, July 17, 2008), for public notice and comment. Only one respondent commented on the proposed rule. This respondent's comment is addressed below. The changes included in the proposed rule are retained in the final rule. Additional revisions for clarity are discussed below.

Section 262.1 Definitions. This section contains definitions of terms pertaining to the law enforcement support activities in 36 CFR part 262, including “camping equipment,” “damaging,” “forest officer,” “law enforcement personnel,” “unauthorized livestock,” and “vehicle.” This section replaces current § 262.1, which will be redesignated as § 262.2.

Section 262.2 Rewards in connection with fire or property prosecutions. The Department is redesignating § 262.1, “Rewards in connection with fire or property prosecution,” as § 262.2 in the final rule. Paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of current § 262.1 set reward amounts for information leading to the arrest and conviction of any person for setting on fire or causing to be set on fire any timber, underbrush, or grass on National Forest System or nearby lands. The reward amounts vary depending on whether the fire was willfully set. Paragraph (a)(3) of current § 262.1 sets a reward amount for information leading to the arrest and conviction of any person charged with destroying or stealing any property of the United States. The revisions to paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) establish new reward payment limitations.

Paragraph (a)(4) of current § 262.1 authorizes payment of a reward for information and evidence in furtherance of an investigation of damage to or theft of all or part of a Pacific yew tree. This provision was added in 1991 (56 FR 29182, June 26, 1991) to address an increase in theft of and damage to the Pacific yew. At the time, the Pacific yew was the only known source of the chemical taxol, which is used to treat cancer. Since taxol is now synthetically produced, the demand for the Pacific yew no longer exists, and the tree is no longer being damaged or stolen. Consequently, the Department is removing paragraph (a)(4) from § 262.1 in the final rule.

The Department is revising paragraph (b) of current § 262.1 to include a cross-reference to 36 CFR 296.17, which, pursuant to Section 8 of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) (16 U.S.C. 470gg), authorizes payment of a reward from a criminal or civil penalty collected under Section 6 or 7 of ARPA (16 U.S.C. 470ee or 470ff) for information and evidence leading to the criminal conviction or civil liability of the person who paid the penalty.

Paragraph (e) of current § 262.1 states: “Applications for reward should be forwarded to the Regional Forester, Research Director, or Area Director who has responsibility for the land or property involved in the trespass.” The final rule amends paragraph (e) to read: “Applications for a reward should be forwarded to the Special Agent in Charge who has responsibility for investigation of the violation of law.” The Agency is replacing “trespass” with “violation of law” because “trespass” does not encompass the violations of law enumerated in § 262.1.

Section 262.3 Payment for information and evidence in furtherance of investigations. For simplicity and clarity, the Forest Service is combining § 262.2, “Purchase of information in furtherance of investigations,” and § 262.3, “Purchase of evidence in furtherance of investigations,” into § 262.3 and renaming it “Payments for information and evidence in furtherance of investigations.” Paragraph (a) revised in § 262.3, “Approval of payments,” establishes new dollar limits for payments for information and evidence in furtherance of an investigation and delegations of authority to the Chief of the Forest Service for approval of those payments. Paragraph (b) in revised § 262.3, “Limitations,” limits payments for information and evidence to further investigations of felony and misdemeanor violations.

The current heading for this subpart is “Impoundments and Removals.” The Department is revising the heading of subpart B to read, “Administrative Impoundment and Removal.” This revision clarifies that impoundment and removal under 36 CFR part 262, subpart B, of animals or personal property on National Forest System lands are administrative remedies governed by Agency regulations, as opposed to impoundment and seizure of property pursuant to arrests and searches, which are governed by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for the United States District Courts.

Section 262.12 Impoundment of personal property. The current regulation sets out the procedure for impounding property that is on National Forest System lands without permission or in violation of law.

For clarity, the Department has split paragraph (a) of § 262.12 into two paragraphs, (a) and (b).

Paragraph (b) of current § 262.12 states that if the local Forest Officer does not know the name and address of the owner, impoundment may be effected at any time 15 days after the date a notice of intention to impound the property in trespass is first published in a local newspaper and posted at the county courthouse and in one or more local post offices and that it be posted in at least one place on the property or in proximity thereto.

The Forest Service is redesignating paragraph (b) as paragraph (c) and revising it to allow impoundment 72 hours after a trespass is discovered and to eliminate the posting requirements in the local newspaper, at the county courthouse, and at local post offices. This revision aligns Forest Service regulations with the regulations of other Federal land management agencies and allows timely removal of property in trespass, thereby protecting National Forest System lands and resources.

The Department is redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph (d) and is revising it for clarity.

Paragraph (d) of current § 262.12 states that if the personal property is not redeemed on or before the date fixed for its disposition, it shall be sold by the Forest Service at public sale to the highest bidder. The Department is redesignating paragraph (d) as paragraph (e) and revising it to give the Forest Service the option to retain and use unclaimed or abandoned personal property for official use, under authority delegated pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, as amended, and its implementing regulations (40 U.S.C. 552; 41 CFR 102-41.50), rather than having to offer the property for sale. In many cases, the cost of selling the property exceeds its value, and retention of unclaimed personal property for administrative use by the Forest Service could result in substantial savings to the public. The Department also is revising existing paragraph (d) to state, per existing authority, that the Federal Government will bill the property owner for costs associated with impoundment, removal, and storage.

Section 262.13 Removal of obstructions. This section currently provides for removal of vehicles or other objects that create an “impediment or hazard to the safety, convenience, or comfort of other users of the National Forest System.” The revised § 262.13 adds the authority to remove vehicles or other objects that are abandoned, vandalized, or a fire hazard or that impair access to or use of any area of the National Forest System. This revision addresses the increasing number of automobiles and other large objects being left on National Forest System lands. These abandoned objects need to be removed because they interfere with access to and use of National Forest System lands, may pose a fire or public safety hazard, and are often unsightly.

The 60-day comment period on the proposed rule ended on September 15, 2008. Only one respondent commented on the proposed rule.

Comment. The respondent objected to elimination of posting requirements for impoundment of property in trespass. The respondent stated that impoundment and removal of animals or personal property on National Forest System lands are not and should not be administrative remedies governed by Agency regulations. The respondent further stated that the proposed rule would authorize Federal agents to seize and transport personal property and livestock without adhering to due process afforded by the United States Constitution.

Response. The portion of this comment addressing impoundment of livestock is beyond the scope of this rulemaking, which addresses only impoundment of personal property. The final rule retains the requirement in § 262.12(b) to post a notice of intention to impound the property in trespass in at least one place in the vicinity of the property if the local Forest Officer does not know the name and address of the owner of property in trespass. Forest Service impoundment regulations have been in place for many years. They are consistent with applicable law and the impoundment regulations of other Federal land management agencies and allow timely removal of property in trespass, thereby protecting National Forest System lands and resources.

Comment. The respondent also stated that Federal agents should not seize or transport livestock without strictly adhering to due process requirements under State and Federal law.

Response. This comment is beyond the scope of this rulemaking, which does not modify § 262.10, Impoundment and disposal of unauthorized livestock.

This final rule revises law enforcement regulations governing certain activities on National Forest System lands. Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 220.6(d)(2) exclude from documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement rules, regulations, or policies to establish servicewide administrative procedures, program processes, or instructions. The Department has determined that this final rule falls within this category of actions and that no extraordinary circumstances exist which require preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

This final rule has been reviewed under USDA procedures and Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 on regulatory planning and review, as amended by E.O. 13422. It has been determined that this final rule is not significant. This final rule will not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy, nor will it adversely affect productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State or local governments. This final rule will not interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency, nor will it raise new legal or policy issues. Finally, this final rule will not alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of beneficiaries of those programs. Accordingly, this final rule is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866.

This final rule has been considered in light of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 602 et seq. ). This final rule amends Forest Service law enforcement regulations governing removal of obstructions, impoundment of personal property, and payment of rewards and payments for information and evidence in furtherance of an investigation and will not impose any requirements on the public. The Department has determined that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined by that Act because this final rule will not impose recordkeeping requirements on them; it will not affect their competitive position in relation to large entities; and it will not affect their cash flow, liquidity, or ability to remain in the market.

The Department has considered this final rule under the requirements of E.O. 13132 on federalism. The Department has determined that this final rule conforms with the federalism principles set out in this E.O.; will not impose any compliance costs on the States; and will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, the Department has determined that no further determination of federalism implications is necessary at this time.

This final rule does not have tribal implications per E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. Therefore, advance consultation with tribes is not required in connection with the final rule.

The Department has analyzed the final rule in accordance with the principles and criteria in E.O. 12630 and has determined that this final rule will not pose the risk of a taking of private property.

The Department has reviewed this final rule under E.O. 12988 on civil justice reform. After adoption of this final rule, (1) all State and local laws and regulations that conflict with this final rule or that impede its full implementation will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this final rule; and (3) it will not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging its provisions.

Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Department has assessed the effects of this final rule on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This final rule will not compel the expenditure of $100 million or more by any State, local, or tribal government or anyone in the private sector. Therefore, a statement under section 202 of the Act is not required.

The Department has reviewed the final rule under E.O. 13211 of May 18, 2001, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply. The Department has determined that this final rule does not constitute a significant energy action as defined in the E.O.

This final rule does not contain any record-keeping or reporting requirements or other information collection requirements as defined in 5 CFR part 1320 that are not already required by law or not already approved for use. Accordingly, the review provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 do not apply to this final rule.

Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Forest Service is amending title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 262 as follows:

Title IV of the Veterans' Benefits Act of 2010, Public Law 111-275, 124 Stat. 2864, 2879 (the Act), enacted on October 13, 2010, contains several provisions that directly affect the payment of and eligibility for certain SGLI related benefits. Therefore, VA is amending its regulations to reflect those statutory changes. VA is also making technical amendments to clarify, in current § 9.2(b)(2), that “initial premium” refers to “initial Veterans' Group Life Insurance premium,” to correct and clarify language concerning the VGLI application period, to update an address and phone number, and to remove a VA form.

Section 402 of the Act amended 38 U.S.C. 1968(a) by extending the duration of the SGLI disability extension period to 2 years from the date of an insured servicemember's separation or release from duty. Prior to enactment of the Act, the 2-year disability extension period was set to expire on September 30, 2011, thereafter reducing the length of the SGLI disability extension to 18 months for servicemembers discharged from duty on or after October 1, 2011. This final rule amends the first sentence of 38 CFR 9.2(b)(2) by deleting the term “1-year period” and replacing it with the term “2-year period” to reflect current law. This rule also amends the last sentence of 38 CFR 9.2(b)(2) to clarify that a servicemember insured under the SGLI disability extension has 1 year following “termination of SGLI coverage” to apply for VGLI coverage and not 1 year from the “termination of duty” as the last sentence of § 9.2(b)(2) currently reads. Under § 9.2(b)(2), for any servicemembers who are unemployable due to being totally disabled at the time of their discharge from service or release from assignment with eligibility for the SGLI disability extension, their VGLI coverage eligibility period begins the day following the end of the SGLI 2-year disability extension period or the day following the end of the total disability, whichever is earlier. The current language came about as a result of a prior regulatory submission that incorrectly substituted the word “duty” for the phrase “SGLI coverage” at the end of the last sentence of § 9.2(b)(2). In addition, in the last sentence of § 9.2(b)(2), we clarify that the “initial premium” referred to is the initial VGLI premium.

This rule also amends 38 CFR 9.5(d) to change the language that states “1 year” following termination of duty to “2 years” following termination of duty to reflect the fact that the SGLI disability extension period referenced in this paragraph is now 2 years in duration.

Title 38, United States Code, section 1980, provides for the payment of an ABO under the SGLI and VGLI programs. ABO is a provision of the SGLI and VGLI programs that allows payment to a terminally ill insured, in the amount requested by the insured, up to 50 percent of his or her insurance coverage. Formerly, 38 U.S.C. 1980(b)(1) required that all ABO payments be reduced by an interest deduction, which is the amount that has been actuarially determined to be the amount of interest lost due to the early payment of the insurance proceeds. Section 405 of the Act eliminated the interest reduction for ABO payments. VA is amending the implementing regulation, 38 CFR 9.14(e), to reflect that change. The phrase “minus the interest reduction” and all references to the ABO interest rate reduction are being deleted wherever they appear in 38 CFR 9.14(e).

We are also amending 38 CFR 9.14 by deleting the reproduction of the ABO claim form from the text of 38 CFR 9.14(f)(2). As a matter of policy, VA no longer includes forms in its regulations. This is because routine minor changes are often made to forms independent of the rulemaking process. Requiring the use of the rulemaking process to make minor, non-substantive changes to widely distributed forms is costly in money, time, and the delivery of benefits and serves no useful purpose. Furthermore, the most recent version of any required insurance form can be found on the VA Insurance Web site ( www.insurance.va.gov ). The words “entitled `Claim for Accelerated Benefits'” are being removed from § 9.14(f) as the current ABO claim form title is different and may be subject to change in the future.

Finally, 38 CFR 9.14(f) is being amended to show that the current address for the Office of Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance is 80 Livingston Avenue, Roseland, New Jersey 07068-1733, and the correct phone number for the office is 1-800-419-1473.

In 2005, Congress extended traumatic injury protection under 38 U.S.C. 1980A to any member who experienced a traumatic injury, as defined in section 1980A(b)(1), between October 7, 2001, and December 1, 2005, “if the qualifying loss was a direct result of injuries incurred in Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom.” Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005, Sec. 1032, Public Law 109-13, 119 Stat. 259-260 (2005).

In 2006, Congress provided a retroactive period of eligibility for traumatic injury protection for a member of the uniformed services who sustained a traumatic injury during the period beginning on October 7, 2001, and ending at the close of November 30, 2005, “if, as determined by the Secretary concerned, that loss was a direct result of a traumatic injury incurred in the theater of operations for Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom.” Veterans' Housing Opportunity and Benefits Improvement Act of 2006, Sec. 501(b), Public Law 109-233, 120 Stat. 411 (2006).

In 2010, Congress amended section 1980A note to delete the phrase “if, as determined by the Secretary concerned, that loss was a direct result of a traumatic injury incurred in the theater of operations for Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom.” Sec. 408, Public Law 111-275. Section 408 of the Act, therefore, expanded the class of individuals who are eligible for retroactive TSGLI benefits to include all servicemembers of the uniformed services who have incurred a qualifying injury on or after October 7, 2001. Prior to Public Law 111-275, retroactive TSGLI benefits were payable for traumatic injury incurred between October 7, 2001 through November 30, 2005, only if the traumatic injury occurred in certain theaters of operation or while serving under orders in support of certain military operations, namely Operation Enduring Freedom and/or Operation Iraqi Freedom, which is no longer applicable. VA is amending 38 CFR 9.20(b)(1)-(3) and (d)(1) to accurately reflect the statutory language.

Changes made by this final rule merely reflect current statutory provisions and miscellaneous technical amendments. Therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3), the Secretary of Veterans Affairs concludes that there is good cause to dispense with public notice and opportunity to comment on this rule and good cause to publish this rule with an immediate effective date. The regulatory changes made by this rule pursuant to the Act reflect changes in statute that VA is adopting, without change, into VA's regulations. The regulatory changes do not involve interpretation of any statutory provision. The remaining changes are technical and non-substantive. Consequently, opportunity for public comment is unnecessary. Due to the above considerations, VA is issuing this rule as a final rule, effective immediately upon publication.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety 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” requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget (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 regulatory action 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 Secretary hereby certifies that this 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. This final rule will directly affect only individuals and will not directly affect small entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this final rule is exempt from the final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of section 604.

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 an 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 final rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments or on the private sector.

This final rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number and title for the program affected by this document is 64.103, Life Insurance for Veterans.

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 July 24, 2014 for publication.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Veterans Affairs amends 38 CFR part 9 as follows:

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

On May 23, 2014 (79 FR 29726) we proposed to approve revisions to the Texas SIP that the TCEQ submitted to EPA with three separate letters dated April 6, 2012, May 8, 2013, and May 14, 2013. Details of these three submittals were explained in our proposal, and its corresponding Technical Support Document. A summary of each submittal is described in section III.

The public comment period for the May 23, 2013 (79 FR 29726) proposal expired on June 23, 2014, and we did not receive any comments on the proposed action during this period. Therefore, we are approving the May 23, 2013 (79 FR 29726) proposal without changes into the Texas SIP.

The April 6, 2012 submittal concerns revisions to 30 TAC, Chapter 117 Control of Air Pollution from Nitrogen Compounds. The revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 117 remove references to the term “system cap trading” for utility electric generation sources operating in major ozone nonattainment areas and the East and Central Texas Counties. The revisions concern sections 117.1020, 117.1120, 117.1220, 117.3020, and 117.9800. The intended effect of this removal is that the April 13, 2012, revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 117 and their corresponding provisions of 30 TAC Chapter 101 will become consistent. The revision is administrative in nature. Therefore, we are approving the April 6, 2012 revisions to 30 TAC, Chapter 117 into the Texas SIP.

The TCEQ submitted revisions to the 30 TAC Chapter 117, Subchapter D, Division 2, Dallas Fort Worth (DFW) Eight-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area, Minor Sources. The submittal will exempt stationary diesel engines (drawworks engine) that are used exclusively for product testing and personnel training, operate less than 1,000 hours per year on a rolling 12-month basis, and meet applicable EPA's emission standards for non-road engines listed in 40 CFR 89.112(a), Table 1 (October 23, 1998) in effect at the time of installation, modification, reconstruction, or relocation. The drawworks engine is used for lifting and lowering casing into the test well at this plant. The test well is not associated with the actual oil or gas production operations. The revisions specifically concern sections 117.2103, 117.2130, 117.2135, and 117.2145. The TCEQ submitted an 110(l) analysis with its submittal showing why expansion of this partial exemption, in itself, does not adversely impact the status of Texas' progress towards attainment of the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard, will not interfere with control measures, and will not prevent reasonable further progress toward attainment of the ozone standard. We found their 110(l) analysis adequate. Therefore, we are approving the May 8, 2013 revisions to 30 TAC, Chapter 117 into the Texas SIP.

The May 14, 2013, revisions to the 30 TAC Chapter 117 update references to Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Incorporated (ERCOT) definition of “emergency situation” and its new Emergency Response Services program. The revision to the definition of “emergency situation” in section 117.10(15) will make the 30 TAC Chapter 117 definitions of “emergency situation” consistent with the ERCOT's Nodal Protocols Section 2 (Definitions and Acronyms) of June 1, 2012. The changes made by ERCOT are intended to promote electric power reliability during energy emergencies by allowing operation of generators for the purpose of selling power to the electric grid under limited circumstances.

The adopted amendment does not increase the number of sources that could qualify for exemption under the Chapter 117 rules, or increase the frequency or duration of the operation during an emergency situation as compared to the approved SIP. Therefore, the revision is consistent with section 110(l) of the Act, and we are approving the May 14, 2013 revisions to 30 TAC, Chapter 117 into the Texas SIP.

Today, we are approving revisions to 30 TAC, Chapter 117 sections 117.1020, 117.1120, 117.1220, 117.3020, and 117.9800. We are approving revisions to 30 TAC, Chapter 117 sections 117.2103, 117.2130, 117.2135, and 117.2145. We are also approving revisions to 30 TAC, Chapter 117 section 117.10(15). The EPA is approving these revisions in accordance with sections 110 and 172(c) of the federal CAA and as being consistent with the EPA's guidance.

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. If a portion of the plan revision meets all the applicable requirements of this chapter and Federal regulations, the Administrator may approve the plan revision in part. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices that meet the criteria of the Act, and to disapprove state choices that do not meet the criteria of the Act. Accordingly, this action 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;

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

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

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

This rule concerns Clean Air Act (CAA) restrictions on the consumption, production, and use of methyl bromide (a Class I, Group VI controlled substance) for critical uses during calendar years 2014 and 2015. Under the Clean Air Act, methyl bromide consumption (consumption is defined under section 601 of the CAA as production plus imports minus exports) and production were phased out on January 1, 2005, apart from allowable exemptions, such as the critical use and the quarantine and preshipment (QPS) exemptions. With this action, EPA is authorizing uses that qualify for the critical use exemption as well as specific amounts of methyl bromide that may be produced and imported for those uses for the 2014 and 2015 control periods.

Section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. Chapter 5, generally provides that rules may not take effect earlier than 30 days after they are published in the Federal Register . EPA is issuing this final rule under section 307(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act, which states that the provisions of section 553 through 557 of Title 5 shall not, except as expressly provided in section 307, apply to actions to which section 307(d)(1) applies. Thus, section 553(d) of the APA does not apply to this rule. EPA is nevertheless acting consistently with the policies underlying APA section 553(d) in making this rule effective on July 31, 2014. APA section 553(d) allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication for a rule that “that grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction.” 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). Since today's action can be considered to either grant an exemption for limited critical uses during 2014 and 2015 from the general prohibition on production or import of methyl bromide after the phaseout date of January 1, 2005, or relieve a restriction that would otherwise prevent production or import of methyl bromide or sale of pre-phaseout inventory for critical uses, EPA is making this action effective immediately upon publication.

Entities and categories of entities potentially regulated by this action include producers, importers, and exporters of methyl bromide; applicators and distributors of methyl bromide; and users of methyl bromide that applied for the 2014 and 2015 critical use exemption including growers of vegetable crops, fruits, and nursery stock, and owners of stored food commodities and structures such as grain mills and processors. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether your facility, company, business, or organization could be regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the regulations promulgated at 40 CFR part 82, subpart A. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding section.

Article 2H of the Montreal Protocol established the critical use exemption provision. At the Ninth Meeting of the Parties in 1997, the Parties established the criteria for an exemption in Decision IX/6. In that Decision, the Parties agreed that “a use of methyl bromide should qualify as `critical' only if the nominating Party determines that: (i) The specific use is critical because the lack of availability of methyl bromide for that use would result in a significant market disruption; and (ii) There are no technically and economically feasible alternatives or substitutes available to the user that are acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health and are suitable to the crops and circumstances of the nomination.” EPA promulgated these criteria in the definition of “critical use” at 40 CFR 82.3. In addition, Decision IX/6 provides that production and consumption, if any, of methyl bromide for critical uses should be permitted only if a variety of conditions have been met, including that all technically and economically feasible steps have been taken to minimize the critical use and any associated emission of methyl bromide, that research programs are in place to develop and deploy alternatives and substitutes, and that methyl bromide is not available in sufficient quantity and quality from existing stocks of banked or recycled methyl bromide.

EPA requested critical use exemption applications through Federal Register notices published on June 14, 2011 (76 FR 34700) (for the 2014 control period) and on May 17, 2012 (77 FR 29341) (for the 2015 control period). Applicants submitted data on their use of methyl bromide, the technical and economic feasibility of using alternatives, ongoing research programs into the use of alternatives in their sector, and efforts to minimize use and emissions of methyl bromide.

EPA reviews the data submitted by applicants, as well as data from governmental and academic sources, to establish whether there are technically and economically feasible alternatives available for a particular use of methyl bromide, and whether there would be a significant market disruption if no exemption were available. In addition, an interagency workgroup reviews other parameters of the exemption applications such as dosage and emissions minimization techniques and applicants' research or transition plans. As required in section 604(d)(6) of the CAA, for each exemption period, EPA consults with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1 This assessment process culminates in the development of the U.S. critical use nomination (CUN). Annually since 2003, the U.S. Department of State has submitted a CUN to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Ozone Secretariat. The Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) and the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP), which are advisory bodies to Parties to the Montreal Protocol, review each Party's CUN and make recommendations to the Parties on the nominations. The Parties then take Decisions on critical use exemptions for particular Parties, including how much methyl bromide may be supplied for the exempted critical uses. EPA then provides an opportunity for public comment on the amounts and specific uses of methyl bromide that the agency is proposing to exempt.

On January 31, 2012, the United States submitted the tenth Nomination for a Critical Use Exemption for Methyl Bromide for the United States of America to the Ozone Secretariat of UNEP. This nomination contained the request for 2014 critical uses. In February 2012, MBTOC sent questions to the United States concerning technical and economic issues in the 2014 nomination. The United States transmitted responses to MBTOC in March, 2012. In May 2012, the MBTOC provided their interim recommendations on the U.S. nomination in the May TEAP Progress Report. In that report, MBTOC posed questions about the U.S. nominations for dried fruit, dried cured ham, and strawberries. The United States responded to those questions in August 2012. These documents, together with reports by the advisory bodies noted above, are in the public docket for this rulemaking. The critical uses and amounts authorized in this rule reflect the analyses contained in those documents.

On January 24, 2013, the United States submitted the eleventh Nomination for a Critical Use Exemption for Methyl Bromide for the United States of America to the Ozone Secretariat of UNEP. This nomination contained the request for 2015 critical uses. In February and March 2013, MBTOC sent questions to the United States concerning technical and economic issues in the 2015 nomination. The United States transmitted responses to MBTOC in March, 2013. In May 2013, the MBTOC provided its interim recommendations on the U.S. nomination in the May TEAP Progress Report and posed additional questions about the U.S. nominations. The United States responded to those questions in August 2013. These documents, together with reports by the advisory bodies noted above, are in the public docket for this rulemaking. The critical uses and amounts authorized in this rule reflect the analyses contained in those documents.

The December 23, 2004, Framework Rule established the framework for the critical use exemption program in the United States, including definitions, prohibitions, trading provisions, and recordkeeping and reporting obligations. The preamble to the Framework Rule included EPA's determinations on key issues for the critical use exemption program.

Since publishing the Framework Rule, EPA has annually promulgated regulations to exempt specific quantities of production and import of methyl bromide, to determine the amounts that may be supplied from pre-phaseout inventory, and to indicate which uses meet the criteria for the exemption program for that year. See 71 FR 5985 (February 6, 2006), 71 FR 75386 (December 14, 2006), 72 FR 74118 (December 28, 2007), 74 FR 19878 (April 30, 2009), 75 FR 23167 (May 3, 2010), 76 FR 60737 (September 30, 2011), 77 FR 29218 (May 17, 2012), and 78 FR 43797 (July 22, 2013).

Unlike in previous years, this rule authorizes critical uses for both 2014 and 2015. EPA proposed to do so to expedite the issuance of 2015 allowances. EPA has received repeated comments to previous CUE rules that a failure to issue allowances in a timely fashion places manufacturers and distributors, who need to plan for the upcoming growing season, in a difficult position. For 2013, the final rule was not effective until July 22, 2013, and EPA recognized that this late date could cause difficulties for growers as well as manufacturers and distributors. EPA received one comment supporting the promulgation of CUE rules on a two-year basis. While the commenter urges EPA issue future CUE rules on a two-year basis, the agency is not able to commit to doing so in future and notes that combining two control periods in one rule may result in CUAs being issued for the first control period later than stakeholders would prefer. Given the timing of action by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on critical uses, EPA is unlikely to be able to add a second control period to a rule without affecting the rule's schedule.

This action continues the approach established in the 2013 rule for determining the amounts of Critical Use Allowances (CUAs) to be allocated for critical uses. A CUA is the privilege granted through 40 CFR part 82 to produce or import 1 kilogram (kg) of methyl bromide for an approved critical use during the specified control period. A control period is a calendar year. See 40 CFR 82.3. The two control periods at issue in this rule are 2014 and 2015. Each year's allowances expire at the end of that control period and, as explained in the Framework Rule, are not bankable from one year to the next.

The 2013 Rule also removed from the regulatory framework the restriction that limits the sale of inventory for critical uses through allocations of Critical Stock Allowances (CSA). A CSA was the right granted through 40 CFR part 82 to sell 1 kg of methyl bromide from inventory produced or imported prior to the January 1, 2005, phaseout date for an approved critical use during the specified control period. Under the framework, the sale of pre-phaseout inventories for critical uses in excess of the amount of CSAs held by the seller was prohibited. As discussed in the 2013 Rule, EPA removed the requirement for CSAs because the restriction was less relevant as few critical uses remained and because changes in labeling would make remaining inventory practically inaccessible. This rule removes all of the remaining provisions in 40 CFR part 82 related to critical stock allowances.

In Decision XXIV/5, taken in November 2012, the Parties to the Protocol agreed “[t]o permit, for the agreed critical-use categories for 2014 set forth in table A of the annex to the present decision for each party, subject to the conditions set forth in the present decision and in Decision Ex. I/4 to the extent that those conditions are applicable, the levels of production and consumption for 2014 set forth in table B of the annex to the present decision, which are necessary to satisfy critical uses. . . .” The following uses are those set forth in table A of the annex to Decision XXIV/5 for the United States:

• Commodities

• Mills and food processing structures

• Cured pork

• Strawberry—field

In Decision XXV/4, taken in October 2013, the Parties to the Protocol agreed “[t]o permit, for the agreed critical-use categories for 2015 set forth in table A of the annex to the present decision for each party, subject to the conditions set forth in the present decision and in Decision Ex. I/4 to the extent that those conditions are applicable, the levels of production and consumption for 2015 set forth in table B of the annex to the present decision, which are necessary to satisfy critical uses. . . .” The following uses are those set forth in table A of the annex to Decision XXV/4 for the United States:

• Cured pork

• Strawberry—field

EPA is modifying the table of critical uses and critical users in 40 CFR part 82, subpart A, appendix L based on the amounts permitted in Decision XXIV/5 and Decision XXV/4 and the technical analyses contained in the 2014 and 2015 U.S. nominations that assess data submitted by applicants to the CUE program.

EPA sought comment on the technical analyses contained in the U.S. nominations (available for public review in the docket) and information regarding any changes to the registration (including cancellations or registrations), use, or efficacy of alternatives that have occurred after the nominations were submitted. EPA did not receive comments on the technical analyses. EPA did receive comments related to alternatives, which are discussed in the next section of the preamble. EPA recognizes that as the market for alternatives evolves, the thresholds for what constitutes “significant market disruption” or “technical and economic feasibility” may change. Such information has the potential to alter the technical or economic feasibility of an alternative and could thus cause EPA to modify the analysis that underpins EPA's determination as to which uses and what amounts of methyl bromide qualify for the CUE.

EPA is finalizing the lists of approved critical uses and approved critical users as proposed. For 2014, EPA is removing Georgia growers of cucurbits, eggplants, peppers, and tomatoes. These groups did not submit applications for 2014 and therefore were not included in the 2014 U.S. nomination. EPA is removing sectors or users that applied for a critical use in 2014 but that the United States did not nominate for 2014. EPA conducted a thorough technical assessment of each application and considered the effects that the loss of methyl bromide would have for each agricultural sector, and whether significant market disruption would occur as a result. As a result of this technical review, the United States Government (USG) determined that certain sectors or users did not meet the critical use criteria in Decision IX/6 and the United States therefore did not include them in the 2014 Critical Use Nomination. EPA notified these sectors of their status by letters dated February 7, 2012. These sectors are orchard replant for California wine grape growers and Florida growers of eggplants, peppers, and tomatoes. For each of these uses, EPA found that there are technically and economically feasible alternatives to methyl bromide.

Some sectors that were not included in the 2014 Critical Use Nomination submitted supplemental applications for 2014. These sectors are: the California Association of Nursery and Garden Centers; California stone fruit, table and raisin grape, walnut, and almond growers; ornamental growers in California and Florida; California strawberry nurseries; stored walnuts; and the U.S. Golf Course Superintendents Association. In addition, some sectors that were not on the list of critical uses for 2013 submitted applications for 2014. These sectors are: California sweet potato growers, Florida strawberry growers, Mardel melon growers, Virginia tomato growers, and Turfgrass Producers International. These sectors were not nominated for 2014. The USG came to a decision that the sectors not nominated for 2014 had not provided rigorous and convincing evidence that they meet the criteria laid out in Decision IX/6, and further that no new problem or large yield/quality loss had been demonstrated that warranted seeking a supplemental exemption from the Parties to the Montreal Protocol.

For 2015 EPA is removing California wine grape growers and Florida growers of eggplants, peppers, tomatoes, and strawberries. These groups did not submit applications for 2015 and therefore were not included in the 2015 U.S. nomination. EPA is also removing sectors or users that applied for a critical use in 2015 but that the United States did not nominate for 2015. As described above EPA conducted a thorough technical assessment of each application and the USG determined that certain sectors or users did not meet the critical use criteria. EPA notified these sectors of their status by letters dated March 26, 2013. These sectors are rice millers, pet food manufacturing facilities, members of the North American Millers Association, and California entities storing walnuts, dried plums, figs, and raisins. For each of these uses, EPA found that there are technically and economically feasible alternatives to methyl bromide. In addition, EPA is removing entities storing dates as a critical use for 2015. While the United States nominated this sector for 2015, MBTOC did not recommend that this sector be a critical use in 2015 and the Parties did not permit this use.

EPA has received supplemental applications for 2015 from sectors that the United States did not nominate for 2015. These sectors are: Michigan cucurbit, eggplant, pepper, and tomato growers; Florida eggplant, pepper, tomato, and strawberry growers; the California Association of Nursery and Garden Centers; California stone fruit, table and raisin grape, walnut, and almond growers; ornamental growers in California and Florida; the U.S. Golf Course Superintendents Association; and stored walnuts, dried plums, figs, and raisins in California. For those sectors the USG came to a decision that the sectors not nominated have not provided rigorous and convincing evidence that they meet the criteria laid out in Decision IX/6, and further that no new problem or large yield/quality loss had been demonstrated that warranted seeking a supplemental exemption from the Parties to the Montreal Protocol.

Finally, EPA is adding information to Column B of appendix L to clarify which critical uses are approved for which control periods. As stated in previous rules, the “local township limits prohibiting 1,3-dichloropropene” are prohibitions on the use of 1,3-dichloropropene products in cases where local township limits on use of this alternative have been reached. In addition, “pet food” under subsection B of Food Processing refers to food for domesticated dogs and cats. Finally, “rapid fumigation” for commodities refers to instances in which a buyer provides short (two working days or fewer) notification for a purchase or there is a short period after harvest in which to fumigate and there is limited silo availability for using alternatives.

Table A of the annex to Decision XXIV/5 lists critical uses and amounts agreed to by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol for 2014. The maximum amount of new production and import for U.S. critical uses in 2014, specified in Table B of Decision XXIV/5, is 442,337 kg, minus available stocks. This figure is equivalent to 1.7% of the U.S. 1991 methyl bromide consumption baseline of 25,528,270 kg.

Similarly, Table A of the annex to Decision XXV/4 lists critical uses and amounts agreed to by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol for 2015. The maximum amount of new production and import for U.S. critical uses in 2015, specified in Table B of Decision XXV/4, is 376,900 kg, minus available stocks. This figure is equivalent to 1.5% of the U.S. 1991 methyl bromide consumption baseline.

EPA proposed to determine the level of new production and import for 2014 and 2015 according to the framework and as modified by the 2013 Rule. EPA is using this approach for the final rule. Under this approach, the amount of new production for each control period equals the total amount permitted by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in their Decisions minus any reductions for available stocks, carryover, and the uptake of alternatives. These terms (available stocks, carryover, and the uptake of alternatives) are discussed in detail below. As established in the 2013 Rule, EPA is not allocating critical stock allowances. Applying this approach, EPA is allocating allowances to exempt 442,337 kg of new production and import of methyl bromide for critical uses in 2014 and 376,900 kg of new production and import for 2015. This is the same amount as the Agency proposed.

EPA received three comments related to the proposed amount of allowances. One comment stated that there should be no exemptions for methyl bromide as it was banned in 2005. While the commenter is correct that the phaseout occurred in 2005, the Montreal Protocol and the Clean Air Act provide exemptions for critical uses. EPA is taking this action under the authority of the Clean Air Act to reflect consensus decisions of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer at the Twenty-Fourth and Twenty-Fifth Meetings of the Parties.

A second commenter stated that it is appropriate for EPA to reduce the new production/import allocation to reflect the adoption of methyl bromide alternatives, including specifically dimethyl disulfide. A third commenter supported the proposal to allocate the full amount permitted by the Parties but stated that EPA should allocate more than the amount requested in the CUN to the extent that the nominations were reduced based on the availability of chloropicrin and iodomethane. EPA responds to these comments later in this section under “Uptake of Alternatives.”

In the past, EPA has also made reductions to the CUA amount to account for the amount specifically permitted for research, on the assumption that research amounts would come from inventory. One commenter stated that EPA failed to account for research use of methyl bromide in the proposed rule and should return to the previously established policy and allocate a separate research purpose allocation. EPA responds that the 2014 and 2015 CUNs did not include, and the Parties did not permit, a separate amount for research, as had been done in prior years. As discussed in more detail in the 2011 CUE final rule (76 FR 60736, 60743, September 30, 2011), EPA views research as part of the nomination for each individual critical use. Therefore, EPA is not making any adjustments for research.

Available Stocks: For 2014 and 2015 the Parties indicated that the United States should use “available stocks,” but did not indicate a minimum amount expected to be taken from stocks. Consistent with EPA's past practice, EPA considered what amount, if any, of the existing stocks may be available to critical users during 2014 and 2015. When EPA issued the proposed rule, the latest data reported to EPA was from December 31, 2012 and showed there were 627,066 kg of existing stocks. New data as of December 31, 2013, show that existing stocks declined to 356,561 kg.

The Parties to the Protocol recognized in their Decisions that the level of existing stocks may differ from the level of available stocks. Both Decision XXIV/5 and Decision XXV/4 state that “production and consumption of methyl bromide for critical uses should be permitted only if methyl bromide is not available in sufficient quantity and quality from existing stocks. . . .” In addition, the Decisions recognize that “parties operating under critical-use exemptions should take into account the extent to which methyl bromide is available in sufficient quantity and quality from existing stocks. . . .” Earlier Decisions also refer to the use of “quantities of methyl bromide from stocks that the Party has recognized to be available.” Thus, it is clear that individual Parties may determine their level of available stocks. Section 604(d)(6) of the CAA does not require EPA to adjust the amount of new production and import to reflect the availability of stocks; however, as explained in previous rulemakings, making such an adjustment is a reasonable exercise of EPA's discretion under this provision.

In the 2013 CUE Rule (78 FR 43797, July 22, 2013), EPA established an approach that considered whether a percentage of the existing inventory was available. In that rule, EPA took comment on whether 0% or 5% of the existing stocks was available. The final rule found that 0% was available to be allocated for critical use in 2013 for a number of reasons including: a pattern of significant underestimation of inventory drawdown; the increasing concentration of critical users in California while inventory remained distributed nationwide; and the recognition that the agency cannot compel distributors to sell inventory to critical users. For further discussion, please see the 2013 CUE Rule. EPA believes these circumstances remain true for 2014 and 2015 and proposed to find 0% of the existing inventory available for 2014 and 2015.

EPA received one comment supporting EPA's determination that 0% of the existing stocks are available for the reasons stated in the proposed rule. The commenter also noted that the manner in which stocks are distributed, to existing customers within their geographic areas, further supports a finding that no stocks are available.

As discussed in the proposed rule, last year EPA removed the restriction that critical stock allowances be expended to sell inventory to critical uses. EPA was unable to calculate the effect this change may have on the remaining inventory and noted that it may be difficult to assess the impact of this change simply from updated inventory data given it went into effect in the middle of the 2013 control period. EPA solicited comments on whether, and how, to draw inferences as to the availability of stocks for critical uses based on inventory figures as of December 31, 2013. EPA did not receive any comments on how to interpret new stocks data in light of the change in policy about CSAs. Therefore, EPA is maintaining its proposed approach and finding that 0% of the existing stocks are available for use by critical users in 2014 and 2015.

Carryover Material: The Parties in paragraph 9 of Decision XXIV/5 “urge parties operating under critical-use exemptions to put in place effective systems to discourage the accumulation of methyl bromide produced under the exemptions[.]” EPA regulations prohibit methyl bromide produced or imported after January 1, 2005, under the critical use exemption from being added to the existing pre-2005 inventory. Quantities of methyl bromide produced, imported, exported, or sold to end-users under the critical use exemption in a control period must be reported to EPA the following year. EPA uses these reports to calculate the amount of methyl bromide produced or imported under the critical use exemption, but not exported or sold to end-users in that year. EPA deducts an amount equivalent to this “carryover” from the total level of allowable new production and import in the year following the year of the data report. So for example, the amount of carryover from 2012 is factored into the determination for 2014. Carryover material (which is produced using critical use allowances) is not included in EPA's definition of existing inventory (which applies to pre-2005 material) because this would lead to a double-counting of carryover amounts.

All critical use methyl bromide that companies reported to be produced or imported in 2012 was sold to end users. 759 MT of critical use methyl bromide was produced or imported in 2012. Slightly more than the amount produced or imported was actually sold to end-users. This additional amount was from distributors selling material that was carried over from the prior control period. Therefore, EPA proposed to apply a carryover deduction of 0 kg to the new production amount for 2014, consistent with the method used in previous CUE rules, and with the format in Decision XVI/6 for calculating column L of the U.S. Accounting Framework.

Production, import, and sales data for 2013 was not reported to EPA by the time of the proposed rule so EPA assumed 0 kg of carryover. New data reported to EPA show that 562 MT of critical use methyl bromide was produced or imported in 2013. Again, slightly more than the amount produced or imported was actually sold to end-users. Therefore, EPA is applying a carryover deduction of 0 kg to the new production amount for 2014 and 2015.

All U.S. Accounting Frameworks for critical use methyl bromide, including the one for 2013, are available in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Uptake of Alternatives: EPA considers data on the availability of alternatives that it receives following submission of each nomination to UNEP. In previous rules EPA has reduced the total CUE amount when a new alternative has been registered and increased the new production amount when an alternative is withdrawn, but not above the amount permitted by the Parties. One comment stated that the allocation amounts should not impede the continued adoption and use of methyl bromide alternatives. EPA believes that considering the uptake of alternatives encourages the adoption of alternatives.

EPA received one comment that dimethyl disulfide (DMDS) is registered in twenty-seven states and that EPA should reduce the new production/import allocation to reflect the success that growers in many parts of the country have had in transitioning to alternatives, including DMDS. EPA also received one comment supporting the proposal not to make reductions to the allocation due to DMDS as it is not registered in California. That commenter stated that even if California were to register DMDS, growers would transition cautiously to ensure it works for their circumstances.

EPA responds that there has been no change in the registration status of DMDS in California, the only state with a pre-plant CUE for 2014 or 2015. Because DMDS is not available in California it would not be appropriate to reduce the allocation amounts. EPA also does not believe that the progress Florida strawberry growers have made in transitioning to alternatives means, as one commenter suggests, that the EPA should reduce the allocation amounts. EPA recognizes that strawberry growers are successfully transitioning to alternatives, and the CUE allocation for strawberries has been declining as that transition has occurred. EPA considered the transition made to date, and the ability of California strawberry growers to further transition, when developing the nomination. Transition rates for alternatives have already been applied for permitted critical use amounts through the nomination and decision process.

One commenter also stated that EPA should allocate more than the amount requested in the CUN to the extent that the nominations were reduced based on the availability of chloropicrin and iodomethane. The commenter states that the removal of iodomethane from the U.S. market has increased demand for methyl bromide. In addition, the proposed restrictions on the use of chloropicrin in California will increase the need for methyl bromide in that state. EPA responds that the CUNs for 2014 and 2015 did not consider iodomethane as an available alternative because it had already been removed from the market by the time the nominations were submitted. Therefore, EPA does not believe it is appropriate to increase the critical use allocations based on the lack of availability of iodomethane.

The proposed rule requested comment on whether proposed control measures from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation on the use of chloropicrin could affect the 2015 control period. EPA did not adjust the allocations for 2014 or 2015 because the changes were only proposed. One commenter stated that EPA should increase the allocation for 2015 above the proposed amount because the need for methyl bromide will increase if California imposes new restrictions. As EPA stated in the proposed rule, EPA views the determination of the total allocation, up to the amount permitted by the Parties, as an appropriate exercise of discretion. The agency will not increase the quantities allocated beyond those permitted by the Parties, but may exercise its discretion to allocate less. In addition, the critical use exemption program has historically only relied on final actions when determining the availability of alternatives. Since EPA proposed to allocate the full amount permitted by the Parties and California's proposed measures are not final, EPA is not increasing the allocation.

One commenter stated that the proposed rule did not take into account the proposed tolerance revocation of sulfuryl fluoride. As EPA has stated in prior rules, the allocation rule is based on the current status of alternatives. Therefore, EPA has not based the allocation amounts for 2014 or 2015 on any anticipated impacts of that proposal on methyl bromide use.

EPA is not making any other modifications to CUE amounts to account for availability of alternatives. Rates of transition to alternatives have already been applied for permitted 2014 and 2015 critical use amounts through the nomination and decision process.

Allocation Amounts: EPA is allocating to the four companies that hold baseline allowances in proportion to their respective critical use allowances for new production or import of methyl bromide equivalent to 442,337 kg in 2014 and 376,900 kg in 2015. Paragraph 3 of Decision XXIV/5 and paragraph 5 of Decision XXV/4 state that “parties shall endeavor to license, permit, authorize or allocate quantities of methyl bromide for critical uses as listed in table A of the annex to the present decision. . . .” This is similar to language in prior Decisions authorizing critical uses. These Decisions call on Parties to endeavor to allocate critical use methyl bromide on a sector basis. The proposed Framework Rule contained several options for allocating critical use allowances, including a sector-by-sector approach. The agency evaluated various options based on their economic, environmental, and practical effects. After receiving comments, EPA determined in the final Framework Rule that a lump-sum, or universal, allocation, modified to include distinct caps for pre-plant and post-harvest uses, was the most efficient and least burdensome approach that would achieve the desired environmental results, and that a sector-by-sector approach would pose significant administrative and practical difficulties. For the reasons discussed in the preamble to the 2009 CUE rule (74 FR 19894), and because of the limited number of permitted uses, the agency believes that under the approach adopted in the Framework Rule, the actual critical use will closely follow the sector breakout listed in the Parties' decisions.

The 2013 Rule removed the provisions at § 82.4(p)(ii) and (iii) requiring the use of critical stock allowances for sales of inventory to critical users. In addition, EPA made some necessary conforming changes to 40 CFR part 82, which follow from removing those restrictions. As a result of the changes in the 2013 CUE Rule, there are no restrictions under the Clean Air Act on the sale of pre-phaseout material to critical users.

EPA took comment in the proposed rule on removing all of the remaining references to critical stock allowances in 40 CFR part 82. EPA believes these provisions are no longer necessary if the agency is not allocating separate critical stock allowances. EPA received one comment in support of removing those provisions, as it would avoid confusion in the future. EPA is finalizing the rule as proposed. Specifically, EPA is removing the definitions of “critical stock allowance,” “critical stock allowance holder,” and “unexpended critical stock allowance” from § 82.3. EPA is removing provisions related to the intercompany transfer of critical stock allowances at § 82.12(a)  2 and the exchange of critical use allowances for critical stock allowances at § 82.12(e). EPA is also removing the reporting and recordkeeping requirements related to critical stock allowances in § 82.13(f)(3) and (g)(4). EPA notes that the agency is maintaining the requirement to annually report remaining pre-phaseout inventory.

In 2013 EPA held discussions with USDA and the Department of State on tools that could potentially address immediate and unforeseen needs for methyl bromide including whether emergency situations may arise that warrant the use of methyl bromide consistent with the treaty, recognizing that emergency uses are not intended as a replacement for CUE uses. In August, EPA held a stakeholder meeting to present, among other things, the findings of those discussions and noted that the three agencies had not yet identified any specific situations that could not be addressed by current mechanisms. The mechanisms discussed include, among others: The continuing critical use exemption process, including the supplemental application process which allows for a second opportunity to review applications from growers with a critical need; the pre-phaseout inventory (if remaining); the emergency use exemption under Section 18 of FIFRA; and ongoing targeted research and outreach to develop and implement alternatives to methyl bromide. The U.S. government is committed to using flexibility in the Protocol's existing mechanisms as an avenue to address changes in national circumstances that affect the transition to alternatives.

EPA solicited comments on specific emergency situations that may necessitate the use of methyl bromide, consistent with the requirements of the Montreal Protocol, and which could be difficult to address using current tools and authorities. EPA received one comment which discussed “hand-held probe” treatments for outbreaks of Oak Root Fungus ( Armillaria ) in fruit and nut orchards. The commenter states that the use is limited in scope, methyl bromide is the only treatment proven to have long term efficacy, and the treatment is critical to the viability of infested orchards. The commenter stated that as a threshold matter, there must be clear and objective criteria to establish the existence of an emergency situation and the basis for approval. In addition the process to meet a particular emergency must be efficient so as to enable all stakeholders to meet the need before the emergency has caused significant damage.

Clear and objective criteria would be required to establish the existence of an emergency situation and the basis for approval. Decision IX/7 states that the Secretariat and the TEAP will evaluate the use according to the critical use criteria in IX/6. Therefore, at a minimum, any potential emergency use must also be able to qualify as a critical use. The example of Armillaria raised by the commenter was also included in an application for a critical use exemption in 2016. The U.S. Government did not include this as part of the 2016 U.S. Nomination because the application did not provide data to demonstrate either the efficacy of methyl bromide or that the alternatives are not effective. Nor did it include data showing that the loss of methyl bromide would create a significant market disruption. EPA will continue in interactions with stakeholders and other agencies to receive information on understanding emergency situations that may necessitate the use of methyl bromide.

Decision XXIV/5 and Decision XXV/4 call on Parties to apply the conditions set forth in Decision Ex. I/4 (to the extent applicable) and the criteria in Decision IX/6 paragraph 1 to exempted critical uses for the 2014 and 2015 control periods. A discussion of the agency's application of the criteria in paragraph 1 of Decision IX/6 appears in sections II.A., and II.C. of this preamble. EPA solicited comments on the technical and economic basis for determining that the uses listed in this rule meet the criteria of the critical use exemption. The CUNs detail how each critical use meets the criteria in paragraph 1 of Decision IX/6, apart from the criterion located at paragraph (b)(ii), as well as the criteria in paragraphs 5 and 6 of Decision Ex. I/4.

The criterion in Decision IX/6 paragraph (1)(b)(ii), which refers to the use of available stocks of methyl bromide, is addressed in section II.D. of this preamble. The agency has previously provided its interpretation of the criterion in Decision IX/6 paragraph (1)(a)(i) regarding the presence of significant market disruption in the absence of an exemption. EPA refers readers to the preamble to the 2006 CUE rule (71 FR 5989, February 6, 2006) as well as to the memo in the docket titled “Development of 2003 Nomination for a Critical Use Exemption for Methyl Bromide for the United States of America” for further elaboration. As explained in those documents, EPA's interpretation of this term has several dimensions, including looking at potential effects on both demand and supply for a commodity, evaluating potential losses at both an individual level and at an aggregate level, and evaluating potential losses in both relative and absolute terms.

The remaining considerations are addressed in the nomination documents including: the lack of available technically and economically feasible alternatives under the circumstance of the nomination; efforts to minimize use and emissions of methyl bromide where technically and economically feasible; the development of research and transition plans; and the requests in Decision Ex. I/4 paragraphs 5 and 6 that Parties consider and implement MBTOC recommendations, where feasible, on actions a Party may take to reduce the critical uses of methyl bromide and include information on the methodology they use to determine economic feasibility.

Some of these criteria are evaluated in other documents. The United States has considered the adoption of alternatives and research into methyl bromide alternatives (see Decision IX/6 paragraph (1)(b)(iii)) in the development of the National Management Strategy submitted to the Ozone Secretariat in December 2005, updated in October 2009. The National Management Strategy addresses all of the aims specified in Decision Ex. I/4 paragraph 3 to the extent feasible and is available in the docket for this rulemaking.

There continues to be a need for methyl bromide in order to conduct the research required by Decision IX/6. A common example is an outdoor field experiment that requires methyl bromide as a standard control treatment with which to compare the trial alternatives' results. As discussed in the preamble to the 2010 CUE rule (75 FR 23179, May 3, 2010), research is a key element of the critical use process. Research on the crops shown in the table in Appendix L to subpart A remains a critical use of methyl bromide. While researchers may continue to use newly produced material for field, post-harvest, and emission minimization studies requiring the use of methyl bromide, EPA encourages researchers to use pre- phaseout inventory. EPA also encourages distributors to make inventory available to researchers, to promote the continuing effort to assist growers to transition critical use crops to alternatives.

Previous Decisions of the Parties have stated that critical users shall employ emission minimization techniques such as virtually impermeable films, barrier film technologies, deep shank injection and/or other techniques that promote environmental protection, whenever technically and economically feasible. EPA developed a comprehensive strategy for risk mitigation through the 2009 Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED)  3 for methyl bromide, available in the docket to this rulemaking, which is implemented through restrictions on how methyl bromide products can be used. This approach means that methyl bromide labels require that treated sites be tarped, except for California orchard replant where EPA instead requires deep (18 inches or greater) shank applications. The RED also incorporated incentives for applicators to use high-barrier tarps, such as virtually impermeable film, by allowing smaller buffer zones around those sites. In addition to minimizing emissions, use of high-barrier tarps has the benefit of providing pest control at lower application rates. The amount of methyl bromide nominated by the United States reflects the lower application rates necessary when using high-barrier tarps, where such tarps are allowed.

EPA will continue to work with the U.S. Department of Agriculture—Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS) and the National Institute for Food and Agriculture (USDA-NIFA) to promote emission reduction techniques. The federal government has invested substantial resources into developing and implementing best practices for methyl bromide use, including emission reduction practices. The Cooperative Extension System, which receives some support from USDA-NIFA provides locally appropriate and project-focused outreach education regarding methyl bromide transition best practices. Additional information on USDA research on alternatives and emissions reduction can be found at: http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/programs/programs.htm?NP_CODE=308 and http://www.csrees.usda.gov/fo/methylbromideicgp.cfm.

Users of methyl bromide should continue to make every effort to minimize overall emissions of methyl bromide. EPA also encourages researchers and users who are using techniques to minimize emissions of methyl bromide to inform EPA of their experiences and to provide information on such techniques with their critical use applications.

Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this final rule is a “significant regulatory action” because it was deemed to raise novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any changes made in response to interagency recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.

This action does not impose any new information collection burden. The application, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements have already been established under previous critical use exemption rulemakings. This rule does remove requirements related to the recordkeeping and reporting of critical stock allowances which would decrease the information collection burden. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations at 40 CFR part 82 under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0482. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR 121.201 (see Table below); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

Agricultural producers of minor crops and entities that store agricultural commodities are categories of affected entities that contain small entities. This rule only affects entities that applied to EPA for an exemption to the phaseout of methyl bromide. In most cases, EPA received aggregated requests for exemptions from industry consortia. On the exemption application, EPA asked consortia to describe the number and size distribution of entities their application covered. EPA estimated that 3,218 entities petitioned EPA for an exemption for the 2005 control period. EPA revised this estimate in 2011 down to 1,800 end users of critical use methyl bromide. EPA believes that the number continues to decline as growers cease applying for the critical use exemption. Since many applicants did not provide information on the distribution of sizes of entities covered in their applications, EPA estimated that, based on the above definition, between one-fourth and one-third of the entities may be small businesses. In addition, other categories of affected entities do not contain small businesses based on the above description.

After considering the economic impacts of this rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives “which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.” (5 U.S.C. 603-604). Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves a regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule. Since this rule allows the use of methyl bromide for approved critical uses after the phaseout date of January 1, 2005, this action confers a benefit to users of methyl bromide. EPA estimates in the Regulatory Impact Assessment found in the docket to this rule that the reduced costs resulting from the de-regulatory creation of the exemption are approximately $22 million to $31 million on an annual basis (using a 3% or 7% discount rate respectively). We have therefore concluded that this rule would relieve regulatory burden for all small entities.

This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Instead, this action provides an exemption for the manufacture and use of a phased out compound and would not impose any new requirements on any entities. Therefore, this action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

This action does not have federalism implications. It 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. This rule is expected to affect producers, suppliers, importers, and exporters and users of methyl bromide. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicited comment on this action from State and local officials.

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments nor does it impose any enforceable duties on communities of Indian tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. EPA specifically solicited additional comment on this action from tribal officials.

This action is not subject to EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not economically significant as defined in EO 12866, and because the Agency does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This rule affects the level of environmental protection equally for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population.

This rule is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This rule does not pertain to any segment of the energy production economy nor does it regulate any manner of energy use. Therefore, we have concluded that this rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects.

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.

EPA has determined that this rule does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations, because it affects the level of environmental protection equally for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-income population. Any ozone depletion that results from this rule will impact all affected populations equally because ozone depletion is a global environmental problem with environmental and human effects that are, in general, equally distributed across geographical regions in the United States. Populations that work or live near fields or other application sites may benefit from the reduced amount of methyl bromide applied, as compared to amounts allowed under previous critical use exemption rules.

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 rule 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 not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective July 31, 2014.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR part 82 is amended as follows:

On February 12, 2014, at 79 FR 8308, a document inadvertently failed to include an instruction to revise the introductory text of paragraph (b) in section 25.140. This document corrects the omission of that instruction.

In FR Doc. 2014-02213 79 FR 8308, February 12, 2014, the following correction is made:

I. Background

DoD published a proposed rule in the Federal Register at 78 FR 73472 on December 6, 2013, to clarify the applicability of DFARS 252.211-7008, Use of Government-Assigned Serial Numbers, and DFARS 252.232-7006, Wide Area WorkFlow Payment Instructions, to acquisitions of commercial items. The rule proposed adding these two clauses to the list at DFARS 212.301(f) of solicitation provisions and contract clauses for the acquisition of commercial items and revising the clause prescriptions to require their inclusion in solicitations and contracts for acquisitions using FAR part 12 procedures. One respondent submitted a public comment in response to the proposed rule.

DoD reviewed the public comment in the development of the final rule. There are no changes from the proposed rule in the final rule, except renumbering at 212.301 due to DFARS baseline changes. A discussion of the comment is provided, as follows:

Comment: The respondent stated that the rule appears to be a cost cutting measure that will reduce exploitation of tax monies being used to purchase products for the Government at an inflated rate.

Response: The rule clarifies the applicability of DFARS 252.211-7008 and 252.232-7006 to acquisitions of commercial items.

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

A final regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., and is summarized as follows:

This rule revises DFARS part 212, Acquisition of Commercial Items, to clarify the applicability of DFARS 252.211-7008, Use of Government-Assigned Serial Numbers, and DFARS 252.232-7006, Wide Area WorkFlow Payment Instructions, to acquisitions of commercial items.

This final rule applies to contractors, regardless of size or business ownership, when responding to DoD solicitations or being awarded contracts that are acquired utilizing FAR part 12 procedures. The rule is not expected to have a significant impact on small entities as it merely clarifies the use of two DFARS clauses. The final rule is expected to have a slightly positive impact because the additional clarity will help contracting officers and small businesses better understand DoD's requirements.

No public comments were received in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis. The rule does not contain any reporting or recordkeeping requirements and does not require contractors to expend significant cost or effort. There are no known significant alternatives to the rule that would further minimize any economic impact of the rule on small entities

The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

Therefore, 48 CFR parts 211, 212, and 232 are amended as follows:

I. Background

DoD published a proposed rule in the Federal Register at 78 FR 73474 on December 6, 2013, to remove section 225.104 in its entirety because the articles currently listed no longer qualify as an exception to the Buy American statute (41 U.S.C. 8302(a)), on the basis of their nonavailability. The two items listed at section 225.104 that are being removed have been found to be either (1) available from domestic producers in the case of aluminum clad steel wire, or (2) DoD does not use the item in the case of the sperm-whale oil. Two public comments were submitted in response to the proposed rule.

No changes are being made to the final rule as a result of the two public comments. The first respondent stated support for the rule and the second respondent noted that there should be no change to the rule.

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

A final regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., and is summarized as follows.

This final rule amends the Defense Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) by removing the DoD-unique list of domestically nonavailable articles that have been found to be either available domestically or are not used by DoD. Of the two items on the list, aluminum-clad steel is produced and available in the United States, and DoD does not use sperm-whale oil.

This rule will not have an impact on small entities as it merely removes from the DFARS a listing of an item that is now domestically available and an item that is not used by DoD. The removal of the nonavailability exception to the Buy American statute for aluminum-clad steel wire will neither increase nor decrease small businesses' participation in future procurements, particularly with regard to set-asides under the Small Business Program. This conclusion is primarily attributed to the application of the nonmanufacturer rule. Under the nonmanufacturer rule, any small business concern proposing to furnish a product that it did not itself manufacture must furnish the product of a domestic small business manufacturer. However, in industries where the Small Business Administration (SBA) has determined there are no domestic small business manufacturers, SBA may issue a waiver to the nonmanufacturer rule to permit small businesses to provide any firm's product (see FAR 19.102(f)(7). Reinstatement of the Buy American statute restrictions has no effect on the application of the nonmanufacturer rule. With respect to the procurement of sperm-whale oil, DoD does not use this product in any application. As such, a discussion of future procurement opportunities for this substance is no longer relevant.

No comments were received from the public in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis. This rule does not add any new information collection, reporting, or record keeping requirements. No alternatives were identified that will accomplish the objectives of the rule.

This rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

Since 1997, sections 111 and 112 of the annual military construction appropriations acts restrict use of military construction funds for acquisitions exceeding certain dollar thresholds of architect-engineer services and military construction contracts to be performed in certain foreign countries. With some exceptions, these restrictions require award to a U.S. firm or provide a preference for award to a U.S, firm.

These restrictions were first implemented as an interim rule in the DFARS under DFARS Case 1997-D307 (63 FR 11526) on March 9, 1998.

This interim rule revises the DFARS to implement sections 111 and 112 of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2014 (Division J of Pub. L. 113-76). The only change required is to apply the restriction to contracts to be performed in the countries bordering the Arabian Sea (rather than the Arabian Gulf). These countries are India, Iran, Oman, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen.

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

DoD does not expect this rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because it applies to a very limited number of small entities. However, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis has been performed and is summarized as follows:

This rule is necessary to implement the restrictions on award to other than U.S. firms when awarding certain military construction and architect-engineer contracts to be performed in countries bordering the Arabian Sea.

The objective of this rule is to implement sections 111 and 112 of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2014 (Division J of Pub. L. 113-76). This rule revises the preference for award to U.S. firms of military construction contracts that have an estimated value greater than $1,000,000 and the restriction requiring award only to U.S. firms for architect-engineer contracts that have an estimated value greater than $500,000, to make it applicable to contracts to be performed in a country bordering the Arabian Sea, rather than a country bordering the Arabian Gulf (as required in earlier statutes).

This will only apply to a very limited number of small entities—those entities that submit offers in response to solicitations for military construction contracts that have an estimated value greater than $1,000,000 and architect-engineer contracts that have an estimated value greater than $500,000, when the contracts are to be performed in countries bordering the Arabian Sea.

There is a DFARS provision that requires for offerors to represent whether they are a U.S. firm. This rule impacts the prescription for applicability of that provision (changing Arabian Gulf to Arabian Sea).

The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.

This rule does not impose any significant economic burden on small firms. The offeror must represent if it is a U.S. firm, but in return for a positive representation is granted a preference for award of the contract. DoD did not identify any alternatives that could reduce the burden and still meet the objectives of the rule.

DoD will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2014-D016), in correspondence.

The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) does apply, however, the rule does not impose any new information collection requirements to the paperwork burden previously approved under OMB Control Number 0704-0255, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 236, Construction and Architect-Engineer Contracts. The rule modifies the prescription for use of the provision at DFARS 252.236-7010, Overseas Military Construction—Preference for United States Firms, in an amount of less than 8 hours. Any change in the burden hours due to the changed prescription will be negligible.

A determination has been made under the authority of the Secretary of Defense that urgent and compelling reasons exist to promulgate this interim rule without prior opportunity for public comment. This action is necessary because this rule implements sections 111 and 112 of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2014 (Division J of Pub. L. 113-76). Delay in making this change to the DFARS may result in (1) the appropriations act restrictions being incorrectly applied to military construction and architect-engineer contracts to be performed in countries bordering the Arabian Gulf and (2) possible misuse of appropriated funds if DoD fails to provide appropriate preference for U.S. firms when performing such contracts in the countries bordering the Arabian Sea. Issuance as an interim rule is necessary to ensure immediate preference for U.S. firms when awarding construction contracts to be performed in countries bordering the Arabian Sea, in order to comply with the law and support the U.S. industrial base.

However, pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 1707 and FAR 1.501-3(b), DoD will consider public comments received in response to this interim rule in the formation of the final rule.”

Therefore, 48 CFR parts 225 and 236 are amended as follows:

Electronic Access: This Federal Register document is also accessible via the Internet at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.

NOAA and USFWS are amending ONMS regulations (50 CFR part 404) to reflect the recent change in address and phone numbers for the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument for general questions and inquiries, permit application processing and vessel reporting requirements. The old address currently appears in section 404.11(b) under “Permitting procedures and criteria.” The old address will be replaced with “NOAA/Inouye Regional Center; NOS/ONMS/PMNM/Attn: Permit Coordinator; 1845 Wasp Blvd., Building 176; Honolulu, HI 96818.”

In addition, the local Hawai`i based phone number for vessel notifications, 808-395-6944, will be removed from the regulations. The toll-free phone number 1-866-478-6944 will remain active. The fax number listed for the ship reporting system will be changed to 1-808-455-3093.

NOAA is also updating the title of the regulations, to reflect the current name of the monument, based on Presidential Proclamation 8112. The name in the regulation will be changed from “Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument” as it currently reads in the regulations to “Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument.”

This rule pertains solely to the organization and correction of existing rules and related administrative changes necessitated by the office relocation of the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument. It makes no changes to the substantive legal rights, obligations, or interests of affected parties. This rule therefore is a “rule of agency organization, procedure or practice” and is therefore exempt from the notice-and-comment requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553 under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A).

The amendments to the regulations identified in this document do not have significant environmental impacts and are categorically excluded from the need to prepare an environmental assessment pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. Specifically, the changes to update codified addresses are administrative in nature, and are thus categorically excluded by NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 Section 6.03c.3(i).

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

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

This rule does not contain any new or revisions to the existing information collection requirement that was approved by OMB (OMB Control Number 0648-0548) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

This regulation is exempt from the notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553. Therefore, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act do not apply, 5 U.S.C. 603(a). No other rule requires a regulatory flexibility analysis and none has been prepared.