The rule titled National School Lunch Program: Independent Review of Applications Required by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 was published on February 6, 2014. OMB cleared the associated ICR on March 12, 2014 under 0584-0573. The ICR approved under 0584-0573 has been transferred to 0584-0026.

This document announces approval of the ICR.

Comments Invited

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-2014-0281; Directorate Identifier 2014-NE-05-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 because of 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 with FAA personnel concerning this AD.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2014-0086, dated April 11, 2014 (referred to hereinafter as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0281.

RR has issued Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. RB.211-73-AH531, Revision 1, dated March 7, 2014. The ASB describes procedures for modifying affected RB211 Trent 500 turbofan engines by installing new EEC software Version L6.1.2.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of the United Kingdom, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This AD requires removal of EEC software, Version L5.6.1 or earlier, and installation of a software version eligible for installation.

No domestic operators use this product. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

We estimate that this AD affects no engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1 hour per engine to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Required parts cost is about $0 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $0.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

This amendment to part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) amends, suspends, or revokes IFR altitudes governing the operation of all aircraft in flight over a specified route or any portion of that route, as well as the changeover points (COPs) for Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes as prescribed in part 95.

The specified IFR altitudes, when used in conjunction with the prescribed changeover points for those routes, ensure navigation aid coverage that is adequate for safe flight operations and free of frequency interference. The reasons and circumstances that create the need for this amendment involve matters of flight safety and operational efficiency in the National Airspace System, are related to published aeronautical charts that are essential to the user, and provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. In addition, those various reasons or circumstances require making this amendment effective before the next scheduled charting and publication date of the flight information to assure its timely availability to the user. The effective date of this amendment reflects those considerations. In view of the close and immediate relationship between these regulatory changes and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and that good cause exists for making the amendment effective in less than 30 days.

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

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) is amended as follows effective at 0901 UTC, July 24, 2014.

The Department provides the following corrections to the rule, “Amendment to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations: Third Rule Implementing Export Control Reform,” published on January 2, 2014, and effective on July 1, 2014 (79 FR 34). As part of the President's Export Control Reform (ECR) effort, the Department of State is amending the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to revise five more U.S. Munitions List (USML) categories and provide other changes.

The changes in this rule are meant to clarify the regulation by revising certain text and providing conforming updates to Supplement No. 1 to part 126, taking into account revisions made to the USML categories in the rule published on January 2, 2014. Additionally, supplement No. 1 to part 126 is amended by removing the note pertaining to cluster munitions (previously, Note 16) because its presence created unnecessary confusion with respect to U.S. policy on cluster munitions.

Pursuant to ECR, the Department of Commerce has been publishing revisions to the Export Administration Regulations, including various revisions to the Commerce Control List (CCL). Revision of the USML and CCL are coordinated so there is uninterrupted regulatory coverage for items moving from the jurisdiction of the Department of State to that of the Department of Commerce. However, the Department of Commerce's companion to the rule corrected in this notice ( see “Control of Military Training Equipment, Energetic Materials, Personal Protective Equipment, Shelters, Articles Related to Launch Vehicles, Missiles, Rockets, Military Explosives, and Related Items,” 79 FR 264) is not being corrected in this edition of the Federal Register .

The following corrections are made to the rule, “Amendment to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations: Third Rule Implementing Export Control Reform,” FR Doc. 2013-31323, published on January 2, 2014 (79 FR 34):

The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulation listed in 33 CFR 100.909, Chinatown Chamber of Commerce Dragon Boat Race; Chicago, IL. This special local regulation will encompass all waters of the South Branch of the Chicago River from the West 18th Street Bridge at position 41°51′28″ N, 087°38′06″ W to the Amtrak Bridge at position 41°51′20″ N, 087°38′13″ W (NAD 83). This year, this special local regulation will be enforced from 7 a.m. until 5 p.m. on June 28, 2014.

Vessels desiring to transit the regulated area may do so only with prior approval of the Patrol Commander and when so directed by that officer. Vessels will be operated at a no wake speed to reduce the wake to a minimum, and in a manner which will not endanger participants in the event or any other craft. The rules contained in the above two sentences shall not apply to participants in the event or vessels of the patrol operating in the performance of their assigned duties. The Patrol Commander may direct the anchoring, mooring, or movement of any boat or vessel within the regatta area.

This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.909, Chinatown Chamber of Commerce Dragon Boat Race; Chicago, IL, and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this publication in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of the enforcement of this special local regulation via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, or his or her on-scene representative may be contacted via Channel 16, VHF-FM.

The South Park Highway double bascule span drawbridge replacement project has progressed to the point of completion. The City of Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) requested a change to the current deviation schedule under which the bridge operates to hold a grand opening celebration scheduled for June 29, 2014. This new temporary deviation will allow the bridge to remain in the closed position and need not open to marine traffic from 3:30 p.m. on June 29, 2014 to 10 p.m. on June 29, 2014 to accommodate the event. The event will be attended by the public, plus local and national dignitaries, as SDOT dedicates the new bridge and reopens a historic and critical transportation link. Festivities will include a parade across the bridge and a street party featuring music and other performances, as well as food and drink vendors. Participants will be able to walk across the bridge and tour its south tower. Currently the bridge operates under a temporary deviation (USCG-2014-0237, 79 FR 21128, April 15, 2014) from 12:01 a.m. on March 30, 2014 to 11:59 p.m. on September 1, 2014 to enable timely completion of the bridge construction project. This deviation allows the drawbridge to remain closed to mariners needing a full channel, double bascule leaf drawbridge opening unless 12 hours advance notice is provided. Mariners that only require a single leaf half channel drawbridge opening will be given an opening upon signal. A draw tender will be present 24 hours a day, 7 days week.

The South Park Highway Double Bascule Bridge is located at Duwamish Waterway, mile 3.8, in the city of Seattle, Washington, and provides 34.8 feet of vertical clearance above at center span while in the closed position and 30 feet of vertical clearance at the extreme east and west ends of the navigable channel and unlimited vertical clearance with the bascule bridge in the fully open position. Vertical clearances are referenced to mean high-water elevation (MHW). Horizontal clearance is 128 feet. However, horizontal clearance may be restricted by construction barges. As such, mariners are advised to consult the Local Notice to Mariners for current conditions.

Maritime traffic on this stretch of the Duwamish waterway consists of vessels ranging from small pleasure craft, sailboats, small tribal fishing boats, and commercial tug and tow, and mega yachts. Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed positions may do so at anytime but are advised to use caution as the area surrounding the bridge has numerous construction craft and equipment in the water. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

The drawbridge must return to the current deviation operating schedule (79 FR 21128, April 15, 2014) immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

The Minnesota Department of Transportation requested a temporary deviation for the Stillwater Highway Drawbridge, across the St. Croix River, mile 23.4, at Stillwater, Minnesota to remain in the closed-to-navigation position on July 4, 2014 as follows:

From 10:00 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on July 4, 2014, the lift span will remain in the closed-to-navigation position.

The Stillwater Highway Drawbridge currently operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.667(b), which states specific seasonal and commuter hours operating requirements.

There are no alternate routes for vessels transiting this section of the St. Croix River.

The Stillwater Highway Drawbridge, in the closed-to-navigation position, provides a vertical clearance of 10.9 feet above normal pool. Navigation on the waterway consists primarily of commercial sightseeing/dinner cruise boats and recreational watercraft. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with waterway users. No objections were received.

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

Section 704 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-213) (2012 CGMTA) specifically exempts U.S. mobile offshore drilling units (MODUs) and other U.S. vessels from the requirement to submit a Notice of Arrival (NOA) when transiting within the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) unless the vessel is arriving from a foreign port or place. Under section 704, U.S. MODUs and other U.S. vessels are exempt from having to submit an NOA when moving from one OCS block area to another.

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

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM with respect to this rule because it is unnecessary. The Coast Guard finds that notice and comment for this rulemaking is unnecessary because we are merely making a regulatory amendment to conform to section 704 of the 2012 CGMTA, which specifically exempts U.S. MODUs and other U.S. vessels traveling between OCS block areas from having to submit an NOA. Public notice of this regulatory amendment is, therefore, unnecessary because public comment cannot affect, influence, or inform any Coast Guard action in implementing the Congressionally-mandated NOA exemption for U.S. MODUs and other U.S. vessels traveling between OCS block areas.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and (3), this rule will become effective upon the date of publication in the Federal Register . Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), an agency is permitted to make “a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction . . .” to become immediately effective. The Coast Guard is making this rule effective immediately because it recognizes the legislative exemption provided to U.S. MODUs and other U.S. vessels from the requirement to submit an NOA when traveling between OCS block areas. Additionally, the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). Delaying the effective date to provide a full 30 day notice is unnecessary because the rule merely makes a regulatory amendment to conform to the legislation passed by Congress under section 704 of the 2012 CGMTA.

The purpose of this rulemaking is to implement the legislative exemption provided under section 704 of the 2012 CGMTA, which exempts U.S. MODUs and other U.S. vessels traveling between OCS block areas from having to submit an NOA. Under current regulations in 33 CFR part 146, subparts C and E, U.S. MODUs and vessels are required to submit an NOA when moving from one OCS block area to another. In order to align 33 CFR part 146, subparts C and E with the NOA exemption provided under the 2012 CGMTA, we are amending §§ 146.215 and 146.401 by specifically exempting U.S. MODUs and other U.S. vessels from having to submit an NOA when traveling directly from one OCS block area to another. U.S. MODUs and vessels arriving directly from a foreign port or place, however, would still be subject to the NOA requirements under 33 CFR 146.215 and 146.405.

Sections 146.215 and 146.401 already contain an NOA exemption for “those U.S. MODUs arriving directly from a U.S. port or place” and “those U.S. vessels traveling directly from a U.S. port or place” respectively; however, §§ 146.215 and 146.405 require NOAs when a MODU or vessel “arrives. . .from a different OCS block area.” Whether an OCS block area is considered a “U.S. port or place,” thus exempting U.S. MODUs or other U.S. vessels traveling from one block area to another from the NOA OCS requirements provided under §§ 146.215 and 146.405, depends on the definitions of “U.S. port or place” and “OCS block area.” A “U.S. port or place” is determined by U.S. Customs and Border Protection through a fact-specific customs ruling. “OCS block area” is defined in both subparts C and E as “the names given by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOE)  1 [which succeeded the Minerals Management Service (MMS) in 2010]  2 to define the OCS areas used to facilitate management or leasing on the OCS.” Because the authority has not expressly addressed whether “U.S. port or place” and “OCS block area” are analogous, we are implementing the legislative exemption contained in section 704 of the 2012 CGMTA by adding “OCS block area” to the existing exemptions in §§ 146.215 and 146.401. Therefore, U.S. MODUs and other U.S. vessels arriving on the OCS directly from a different OCS block area, as well as those MODUs and vessels arriving from a U.S. port or place, would be exempt from the NOA OCS requirements. Also, to reflect the reorganization of MMS into BOEMRE in 2010, and subsequently BOEMRE into BOEM and BSEE in 2011, we are amending §§ 140.10, 140.101 (b through d), 140.103 (b and c) and 140.105(a through e). We are also amending §§ 146.102, 146.200, 146.402 and 146.405(b)(2) to reflect the current title and acronym of “BOEM”, which is called “BOE” in this section of our existing regulations.

On January 13, 2011, the Coast Guard published a final rule in the Federal Register (76 FR 2254) that established the NOA requirements for vessels, facilities, and MODUs operating on the OCS. The final rule was designed to enhance maritime domain awareness over OCS activities. The rule increased maritime security and safety by requiring U.S. and foreign-flagged vessels, floating facilities, and MODUs arriving on and/or engaging in OCS activities to report their arrival time; location; and information regarding the floating facilities; MODUs; and the vessel's voyage, cargo, crew, and vessel information.

The “OCS” is defined in 33 CFR 140.10 to include “all submerged lands lying seaward and outside of the area of `lands beneath navigable waters' as defined in section 2(a) of the Submerged Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1301(a)) and of which the subsoil and seabed appertain to the United States and are subject to its jurisdiction and control.” “OCS activity” is defined in 33 CFR 140.10 as “any offshore activity associated with the exploration for, or development or production of, the minerals of the Outer Continental Shelf.”

The rule implemented provisions of the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 and increased overall maritime domain awareness by requiring owners or operators of U.S. and foreign-flagged vessels, floating facilities, and MODUs to submit NOA information to the Coast Guard's National Vessel Movement Center (NVMC) prior to engaging in OCS activities. Such information is critical to maritime safety and security and enables the Coast Guard to more effectively prevent or respond to a safety or security concern on the OCS.

The January 13, 2011, NOA final rule and related materials may be viewed online at http://www.regulations.gov, docket number: USCG-2008-1088.

Upon publication of that final rule, the U.S. domestic offshore industry indicated that compliance with the final rule was difficult because of the nature of the services that these vessels provide when engaged in activities on the OCS. Through our partnership with the Offshore Marine Service Association, we established a working group to specifically address the design of an OCS-specific reporting form.

In the intervening time between the effective date of the 2011 NOA final rule and the 2012 CGMTA, we requested voluntary compliance with the 2011 final rule using the current e-NOA-OCS application so that we could ascertain the practicality of the current application and the information requested. This voluntary compliance period allowed us to gather information as to what was needed to reduce the reporting burden. In December 2012, the 2012 CGMTA was signed into law. It contains a section that exempts U.S. MODUs and other U.S. documented vessels from reporting block-to-block movements and filing an NOA unless arriving on the OCS directly from a foreign port.

Through this rulemaking, we are amending §§ 146.215 and 146.401 by exempting U.S. MODUs and other U.S. vessels from having to submit an NOA when traveling directly from one OCS block area to another. These regulatory amendments are necessary in order to conform to the legislation passed by Congress under section 704 of the 2012 CGMTA, which specifically exempts U.S. MODUs and other U.S. vessels traveling between OCS block areas from having to submit an NOA. We are also making a non-substantive amendment to §§ 140.10, 140.101, 140.103, 140.105, 146, 102, 146.200, 146.402 and 146.405 to reflect the current title and acronym for BOEM and BSEE.

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

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

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

This final rule will implement a statutory change that exempts U.S. MODUs and U.S. vessels from submitting NOAs to the NVMC when transiting from one OCS block area to another, as defined above. This rule will align our regulations with section 704 of the 2012 CGMTA, which specifically exempts these vessels from submitting NOAs when traveling from one OCS block area to another. U.S. MODUs and vessels arriving from a U.S. port or place and traveling to the OCS and those same vessels that travel from the OCS to a U.S. port or place are exempt from submitting NOAs in 33 CFR part 146. However, based on Coast Guard data, no NOAs have been received from affected U.S. vessel owners and operators since December 2012, when the CGMTA was signed into law. Therefore, this rule will not have an economic impact on owners and operators of U.S. MODUs and vessels that transit the OCS.

All vessels arriving from a foreign port or place to an OCS block area and vessels departing from an OCS block area traveling to a foreign port or place are still required to submit NOAs to the NVMC in accordance with 33 CFR part 146 as these vessels are not exempt under this final rule.

In the development of this rule, we considered two alternatives (including the preferred alternative). The key factors that we evaluated in considering each alternative included: (1) The degree to which the alternative comported with the congressional mandate in section 704 of the 2012 CGMTA; (2) what benefits, if any, would be derived, such as the reduction in burden for vessel owners and operators; and (3) impacts on costs, if any. The alternatives considered are as follows:

Alternative 1: Revise 33 CFR part 146 to remove the current submission requirement of an NOA for owners and operators of U.S. MODUs and vessels that transit from one OCS block area to another (preferred alternative). At present, owners and operators of U.S. MODUs and vessels are required to submit a NOA to the NVMC when departing from or arriving to one OCS block area to another. Implementation of this final rule will eliminate the NOA submission requirement for the above affected vessels.

Alternative 2: Take no regulatory action. This option was not selected as it would not implement section 704 of the 2012 CGMTA. Under this alternative, regulatory language would remain inconsistent with section 704 of the 2012 CGMTA and current practice.

We chose Alternative 1, which implements section 704 of the Act as described in Section V of the preamble above. We chose to reject Alternative 2, the “no regulatory action” alternative, because it would not implement section 704 of the Act and would not harmonize regulatory language with the statute.

We do not expect this final rule to impose new costs on the public or industry. This final rule will align our regulations with section 704 of the 2012 CGMTA, which exempts U.S. MODUs and vessels from submitting NOAs to the NVMC when traveling from one OCS block area to another.

This rule makes conforming regulatory amendments to the legislation passed by Congress under section 704 of the 2012 CGMTA, which specifically exempts U.S. MODUs and other U.S. vessels traveling between OCS block areas from having to submit an NOA. By conforming the regulations to the legislation, we eliminate any potential for confusion regarding whether an NOA must be submitted when U.S. MODUs and U.S. vessels travel from one OCS block area to another. The Coast Guard has determined that because there have been no NOAs submitted to the NVMC since passage of the 2012 CGMTA, there are no cost savings attributable to this final rule.

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. However, we are implementing this legislative exemption in section 704 of the 2012 CGMTA as a final rule, foregoing notice and comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and the RFA does not require an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for rules promulgated under section 553(b)(B). Therefore, the Coast Guard is not required to publish a regulatory flexibility analysis.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule affects your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult Lieutenant Commander Michael Lendvay, Office of Commercial Vessel Compliance, Coast Guard; telephone 202 372-1218, email michael.d.lendvay@uscg.mil. 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.

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).

This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). On December 20, 2012, the 2012 CGMTA was passed, which exempts U.S. vessels and MODUs that transit from one OCS block area to another from submitting NOAs to the NVMC. As a result, vessel owners and operators have not submitted NOAs since that time. This change has been incorporated into the ICR burden estimates during its renewal. Therefore no collection of information is necessary from this final rule.

A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 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 is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132. Our analysis is explained below.

Congress specifically granted the authority to the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating to regulate artificial islands, installations, and other devices permanently or temporarily attached to the OCS and in the waters adjacent thereto as it relates to the safety of life. Title 43 U.S.C. 1333(d)(1) states that the Secretary “shall have the authority to promulgate and enforce such reasonable regulations with respect to lights and other warning devices, safety equipment, and other matters relating to the promotion of safety of life and property on the artificial islands, installations, and other devices . . . or on the waters adjacent thereto, as he may deem necessary.” As this rule exempts certain MODUs and vessels from submitting NOAs when transiting from one OCS block area to another, it falls within the scope of authority Congress granted exclusively to the Secretary, especially since the rule implements a statutory change enacted by Congress under section 704 of the 2012 CGMTA. This authority has been delegated to the Coast Guard and is exercised in this rulemaking, and the States may not regulate within this category of arrival notification. Therefore, the rule is consistent with the principles of federalism and preemption requirements in E.O. 13132.

While it is well settled that States may not regulate in categories in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a vessel's obligations, the Coast Guard recognizes the key role that State and local governments may have in making regulatory determinations. Additionally, for rules with federalism implications and preemptive effect, E.O. 13132 specifically directs agencies to consult with State and local governments during the rulemaking process. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

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 E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

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

We have analyzed this rule under E.O. 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 E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. A final environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES . This rule involves Congressionally mandated regulations.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR parts 140 and 146 as follows:

The regulations found in 33 CFR 165.939 serve to protect the boating public from hazards associated with firework displays that take place on a navigable waterway within the Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone Buffalo. For boundaries of this COTP zone, see 33 CFR 3.45-10.

In 2013, the Captain of the Port Buffalo revised the regulations found in 33 CFR 165.939 through a final rule published April 23, 2013 (78 FR 23850). Those revisions clarified the locations of many outdated safety zones and established seven additional safety zones within the Captain of the Port Zone Buffalo area of responsibility. On May 1, 2014, we published an NPRM entitled Safety Zones; Annual Fireworks Events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone in the Federal Register (79 FR 24656) that proposed to revise § 165.939 to provide greater regulatory flexibility for enforcement notification and to add six safety zones. We received no comments on the proposed rule.

Section 165.939 currently lists 29 permanent safety zones within the Captain of the Port Zone Buffalo. Each of these 29 safety zones corresponds to an annually recurring fireworks display.

After the recent 2013 summer season it was noted the effective times and dates published for these events were not always rigidly adhered to by fireworks sponsors and event organizers and thus a subsequent regulatory update enacting greater regulatory flexibility for enforcement notification was desired in order to maximize Coast Guard efficiency and public safety. Also, the COTP Buffalo has decided to enforce safety zones for one additional firework display and five additional marine events.

With the above findings in mind, the Coast Guard is revising 33 CFR 165.939 to provide more flexibility in the enforcement periods and to include several non-fireworks events.

The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that these events present significant hazards to public spectators and participants. Such hazards include premature detonations, dangerous detonations, dangerous projectiles, falling or burning debris, vessels of unique design operating at great speed, and large numbers of competitive swimmers.

As noted above, we received no comments on the NPRM (79 FR 24656). We have not made any changes from the proposed rule.

For all of the above reasons, the Captain of the Port Sector Buffalo is revising 33 CFR 165.939. This revision will change the verbiage on the enforcement period for all 29 safety zones currently listed and establish six additional safety zones in § 165.939. These new safety zones are being added as paragraphs (30) Thunder on the Niagara Hydroplane boat races, North Tonawanda, NY; (31) Antique Boat Show Hydroplane boat races, Grand Island, NY; (32) D-Day Conneaut Air show, Conneaut, OH; (33) Bay Swim, Erie, PA; (34) Rover Fest fireworks display, Cleveland, OH; and (35) Cleveland National Air show, Cleveland, OH. Although this rule will remain in effect throughout the year, the safety zones within it will be enforced only before and during each corresponding event.

The enforcement dates and times for each of the safety zones listed in § 165.939 are subject to change, but the duration of enforcement would remain the same or nearly the same as the total number of hours identified for that zone in § 165.939. For any given year, in the event of a change in the enforcement period, the Captain of the Port Sector Buffalo will provide notice to the public by publishing a Notice of Enforcement in the Federal Register , as well as, issuing a Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zones identified in § 165.939 will be prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

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

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

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this rule on small entities. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in any one of the safety zones while these zones are being enforced. These safety zones will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: Each safety zone in this rule will be in enforced for no more than 10 hours in any 24-hour period with the majority of zones only being in enforced for a few hours in any 24 hour period. Each of the safety zones will be enforced only once per year and will be in areas with low commercial vessel traffic. Furthermore, these safety zones have been designed to allow traffic to pass safely around each zone. In the event that a safety zone affects shipping, commercial vessels may request permission from the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his or her designated representative to transit the safety zone.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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

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

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

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

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

This 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 would 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 would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

This rule 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 made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Commandant Instruction because it involves the establishment of a safety zone.

An environmental analysis checklist 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 is amending 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

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

On April 25, 2014, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Celebrate The Amboys Fireworks; Raritan Bay, Perth Amboy, NJ in the Federal Register (79 FR 22919). We received no comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested and none was held.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . The rule must become effective on the date specified in order to provide for the safety of spectators and vessels operating in the area near this event. Delaying the effective date of this rule would be contrary to the public interest and would expose spectators and vessels to the hazards associated with the fireworks event. The sponsor advised that any change to the date of the event would cause economic hardship on the event sponsor, negatively impacting other activities being held in conjunction with the event.

The legal basis for this rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

This temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels from hazards associated with the fireworks display.

No comments were received but one change was made to the final rule. The sponsor changed the event date to July 3, 2014 and added July 4, 2014 as a rain date. The NPRM stated that the event date was July 4, 2014. On April 18, 2014, the Coast Guard received notification via email that the event sponsor requested the date of the event be changed to July 3, 2014 and that July 4, 2014 would be utilized as a rain date.

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 Coast Guard's enforcement of this safety zone will be of short duration, lasting only 90 minutes. The safety zone will restrict access to only a small portion of the navigable waterways of Raritan Bay. Vessels will be able to navigate around the proposed safety zone. Furthermore, vessels may be authorized to transit through the safety zone with the permission of the COTP.

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 0 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 proposed rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a small portion of Raritan Bay during the effective period.

This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This rule would be in effect for only 90 minutes late at night when vessel traffic is low, vessel traffic can pass safely around the safety zone, and the Coast Guard will notify mariners before activating the zone by appropriate means which may include but are not limited to Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On April 25, 2014 the Coast Guard published an NPRM entitled “Safety Zone; Freeport Chamber of Commerce Fireworks Display; South Oyster Bay; Freeport, NY” in the Federal Register (79 FR 22930). No public comments were received on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested and none was held.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . The comment period for the NPRM associated with the Freeport Chamber of Commerce Fireworks Display expired on May 27, 2014. The event is scheduled to occur on July 5, 2014. Thus, there is now insufficient time for a 30 day effective period before the need to enforce this safety zone on July 5, 2014.

The fireworks display will take place on July 5, 2014 to coincide with Independence Day. Delaying the enforcement of this safety zone to allow a 30 day effective period will be impractical and contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to fulfill its mission to keep the ports and waterways safe.

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

This temporary rule is necessary to promote the safety of life on navigable waterways during the Freeport Chamber of Commerce fireworks display in South Oyster Bay near the Guy Lombardo Marina in Freeport, NY.

No comments were received and no changes have been made to the final rule. The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone for the Freeport Chamber of Commerce fireworks display to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event. This safety zone includes all waters of South Oyster Bay within 600 feet of the fireworks launch site located at Guy Lombardo Marina in Freeport, NY.

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 Coast Guard determined that this rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action for the following reasons: The safety zone will be enforced for a relatively short duration, just a little over an hour on a single day. Also, the safety zone covers only a small portion of the navigable waterways and waterway users may still transit around the safety zone. Additionally, mariners may request permission from the COTP Sector Long Island Sound or the designated representative to transit through the zone. Finally, advance public notifications will be made to the local maritime community through the Local Notice to Mariners as well as Broadcast Notice to Mariners to maximize public awareness of this safety zone.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received zero comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit, anchor or moor within the safety zone during the enforcement period. The temporary safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the same reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Between 9:15 p.m. and 10:45 p.m. on July 6, 2014, a fireworks display will be held on Lake Ontario in Oswego, NY. The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that fireworks launched proximate to a gathering of watercraft pose a significant risk to public safety and property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris.

With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the Independence Day Celebration Fireworks display. This zone will be effective and enforced from 9:15 p.m. until 10:45 p.m. on July 6, 2014. This zone will encompass all waters of Lake Ontario, Oswego, NY, within an 840- foot radius of position 43°27′54.25″ N and 76°30′57.75″ W (NAD 83).

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

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

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

We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this rule on small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Lake Ontario on the evening of July 6, 2014.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This year, the Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the annual Point Pleasant Sternwheel Festival listed in 33 CFR 100.801 Table 1, No. 25, on June 28th, 2014 from 9:45 p.m. until 10:45 p.m. This establishes the currently published date of the last weekend in June or first weekend in July as found in 33 CFR 165.801 Table 1, No. 25.

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.801, entry into, or remaining or anchoring within the safety zone listed in Table 1, No. 25 is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or a designated representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or pass through the Safety Zone must request permission from the Captain of the Port or a designated representative. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port or designated representative.

This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via Local Notice to Mariners and Marine Information Broadcasts.

If the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley or Patrol Commander determines that the safety zone need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice of enforcement, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the Coast Guard did not receive necessary information regarding the fireworks displays until May 27, 2014. As a result, the Coast Guard did not have sufficient time to publish an NPRM and to receive public comments prior to the fireworks displays. Any delay in the effective date of this rule would be contrary to the public interest because immediate action is needed to minimize potential danger to the public during the fireworks displays.

For the same reason discussed above, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish regulated navigation areas and other limited access areas: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.The purpose of the rule is to protect the public from the hazards associated with launching fireworks over navigable waters of the United States.

Multiple fireworks displays are planned for Fourth of July celebrations throughout the Captain of the Port Charleston Zone. The fireworks will be launched from land, piers, or barges. The fireworks will explode over navigable waters of the United States.

The Coast Guard is establishing two temporary safety zones for Fourth of July Fireworks Displays on navigable waters of the United States within the Captain of the Port Charleston Zone. The two safety zones, with the specific enforcement period for each safety zone, are listed below.

1. Murrells Inlet, South Carolina. All waters within a 1,000 yard radius around Veterans Pier, from which the fireworks will be launched, located on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. This safety zone will be enforced from 9:00 p.m. until 10:15 p.m. on July 4, 2014.

2. North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. All waters within a 500 yard radius around Cherry Grove Pier, from which the fireworks will be launched, located on the Atlantic Ocean. This safety zone will be enforced from 9:00 p.m. until 10:25 p.m. on July 4, 2014.

Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within any of the safety zones unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within any of the safety zones may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston via telephone at (843) 740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within any of the safety zones is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the safety zones by Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Marine Safety Information Bulletins, and on-scene designated representatives.

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

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those orders. The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) The safety zone will only be enforced for a total of one and a half hours; (2) although persons and vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without authorization from the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period; (3) persons and vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone if authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative; and (4) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the safety zone to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

For the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). Based on our analysis, we concluded 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 is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

An environmental analysis checklist and a Categorical Exclusion Determination were completed for this event in previous years. Since this event has remained materially unchanged from the time of the prior determinations, a new environmental analysis checklist and Categorical Exclusion Determination were not completed for 2014. The previously completed environmental analysis checklist and Categorical Exclusion Determination can be found in docket folder for USCG-2013-0415 at www.regulations.gov.

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

Table of Contents I. Background II. Response to Comments III. Basis for our Final Action IV. Final Action V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review Definitions

For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:

(i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.

(ii) The initials ARSD mean or refer to the Administrative Rules of South Dakota.

(iii) The initials DENR mean the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

(iv) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

(v) The words minor NSR mean NSR established under section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.164.

(vi) The initials NAAQS mean or refer to National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

(vii) The initials NSR mean new source review, a phrase intended to encompass the stationary source regulatory programs that regulate the construction and modification of stationary sources as provided under CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), CAA Title I, parts C and D, and 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.166.

(viii) The initials PSD mean or refer to Prevention of Significant Deterioration.

(ix) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.

(x) The words State or South Dakota mean the State of South Dakota, unless the context indicates otherwise.

The CAA (section 110(a)(2)(C)), 40 CFR 51.160, and the other statutory and regulatory provisions discussed in this final notice, require states to have legally enforceable procedures in their SIPs to prevent construction or modification of a source if it would violate any SIP control strategies or interfere with attainment or maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Such minor new source review (NSR) programs are for pollutants from stationary sources that do not require PSD or nonattainment NSR permits. A state may customize the requirements of its minor NSR program as long as the program meets the minimum statutory and regulatory requirements.

On June 14, 2010, South Dakota submitted revisions to its minor source NSR program. The June 14, 2010 submittal included: (1) Revisions to the definitions associated with the Air Pollution Control Program to ensure the definitions are current and consistent with other chapters in the regulations. These revisions include: grammatical changes, renumbering, modified definitions, new definitions and deleted definitions; (2) Revisions to the date of federal regulations referenced throughout ARSD Article 74:36; (3) Addition of a construction permit program for new minor sources and minor modifications to existing sources, created by adding new Chapter 74:36:20 (Construction Permits for New Sources or Modifications); and (4) Revisions to the minor source operating permit programs to incorporate the changes associated with the new proposed construction permit program.

In South Dakota's regulations in ARSD Article 74:36 that are currently approved into the SIP, the minor source construction permit and operating permit programs are combined so, in practice, a source receives one permit from the State which serves as both a construction and operating permit. 1 The revisions in the June 14, 2010 submittal separate the two programs into a new minor source construction permit program and a minor source operating permit program. Under the new revisions, a source would first apply for a construction permit before applying for an operating permit. A cross-walk table, which discusses the rule revisions in Article 74:36 individually, and the action we are proposing, is included in the docket for this rulemaking.

South Dakota's June 14, 2010 submittal also contains rule revisions that are not included in SIPs. These rules, which we are not taking action on here (i.e., New Source Performance Standards, operating permits for part 70 sources, etc.), are outlined in the cross-walk table located in the docket for this rulemaking.

South Dakota's June 20, 2011, submittal includes the following rule revisions: (1) Revises Sections 74:36:01:01, 74:36:01:08, 74:36:01:15 and 74:36:09:02 related to regulation of greenhouse gases (revisions to Sections 74:36:01:08, 74:36:01:15 and 74:36:09:02 to comply with EPA's Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule were previously acted on);  2 EPA is taking final action on 74:36:01:01 in this rulemaking); (2) Revises Chapter 74:36:20 by revising Section 74:36:20:02 (Construction Permits Required); and (3) Adds new Section 74:36:20:02.01 (Initiating Construction Prior to Permit Issuance). Section 74:36:20:02.01 allows sources who meet certain conditions to start construction prior to receiving a permit provided they meet the requirements in that section. EPA is taking final action on 74:36:20:02 and 74:36:20:02.01 in this rulemaking. 3

With respect to South Dakota's July 29, 2013 submittal, we are only taking final action on the following revisions: (1) The removal of section 74:36:04:03.01 (Minor Source Operating Permit Variance); and (2) Revisions to section 74:36:10 (New Source Review).

In our April 16, 2014 proposed action (79 FR 21424), we proposed to: (1) Approve 74:36:01:01 (Definitions); 74:36:02 (Ambient Air Quality); 74:36:03 (Air Quality Episodes); 74:36:04 (Operating Permits for Minor Sources); 74:36:10 (New Source Review); 74:36:11 (Performance Testing); 74:36:12 (Control of Visible Emissions); 74:36:13 (Continuous Emissions Monitoring); 74:36:18 (Regulations for State Facilities in the Rapid City Area); and 74:36:20 (Construction Permits for New Sources or Modifications); 74:36:01:01(73) (Subject to Regulation); the deletion of 74:36:04:03.01 (Minor Source Operating Permit Variance); (2) Disapprove 74:36:20:02.01 (Initiating Construction Prior to Permit Issuance); the phrase: “unless it meets the requirements in 74:36:20:02.01” in 74:36:04:20:02 (Construction Permit Required); (3) Not take action on 74:36:05 (Operating Permits for Part 70 Sources); 74:36:07 (New Source Performance Standards); 74:36:08 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants); 74:36:09 (Prevention of Significant Deterioration); 74:36:16 (Acid Rain Program); and 74:36:19 (Mercury Budget Trading Program).

We provided a detailed explanation of the bases for our proposal. See 79 FR 21426-21429. We invited comment on all aspects of our proposal and provided a 30-day comment period. The comment period ended on May 16, 2014.

In this action, we are responding to the comments we received and taking final rulemaking action on the rules from the State's June 14, 2010, June 20, 2011, and July 29, 2013 submittals.

In response to our April 16, 2014 proposed rulemaking, we received comments from Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Secretary Steven M. Pirner on behalf of the State of South Dakota. In this section, we summarize these comments and provide our responses.

Comment: The comments explain that DENR submitted a draft copy of ARSD 74:36:20:02.01 in December 2010 to EPA for informal comments prior to beginning the State's formal rule making process; and that EPA provided preliminary comments back to DENR via email on January 11, 2011. DENR's comments on our proposal suggest that DENR notified EPA that those preliminary concerns were addressed in ARSD 74:36:20:02.01(1), 74:36:20:02.01(2) and 74:36:20:02.01(6). DENR's comments further explain that it believed EPA's concerns were addressed at that time, since EPA did not provide the same comment during the public notice phase of the rule making.

Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. While we aim to provide comments before and during a state's rule making process, the CAA neither requires that EPA comment on proposed SIP rules, nor does it preclude EPA from carrying out its statutory duty to disapprove an inadequate SIP if EPA does not provide comments to a state. The notion that EPA's silence suggests a SIP is approvable—simply because EPA did not comment during the State's formal rule making process—has no support in the Act, it is contrary to the purposes of the Act and EPA's express obligation to approve only SIP submittals that meet the requirements of the Act, as explained elsewhere in this final action. Moreover, nothing in EPA's preliminary comments suggested that the State's draft rules would be approvable if the State were to make the suggested changes. 4

DENR comments indicate that it provided notification to us that our preliminary concerns were addressed by provisions in ARSD 74:36:20:02.01(1), 74:36:20:02.01(2) and 74:36:20:02.01(6). The comment does not cite to a particular communication from the State. Therefore, we are unclear what notification DENR is referring to. We are aware of one email from the State regarding this topic;  5 however, that email summarizes other provisions in the State rules.

Comment: DENR provided an analysis of the public comments received on the State's proposed rule, and disagreed with “EPA's implication that all public commenters were concerned about allowing construction prior to receiving a construction permit.”

Response: We disagree with the assertions in this comment. The comment does not cite to specific language in the proposed notice; however, we assume the commenter is referring to Footnote 5 in our proposed rulemaking where we stated: “[t]he State also received public comments from 13 individuals on this issue and related concerns.” 79 FR 21428. EPA did not intend to interpret the meaning or intent of the public comments on the State's proposed rule, but simply included this footnote to point out that the State received adverse comments during its rulemaking process that expressed concerns regarding the State's proposed rules.

Comment: DENR suggests that EPA is being arbitrary and capricious in enforcing the language in 40 CFR 51.161 for public participation in minor NSR permitting programs. DENR indicates that there are “EPA approved state implementation plans that have been in place for many years which do not require a 30-day public notice for any non-PSD construction permits,” and provides as an example “Iowa's state implementation plan which is South Dakota's neighbor and competitor for economic development projects.” The comment states that “EPA cannot give one state an advantage over another in economic development by requiring inconsistent mandates to SIPs.” DENR's comment suggests that even if EPA's argument had validity, DENR is required by its regulations to notice the construction permit “before the applicant can operate any equipment which emits air pollutants into the air.”

Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. We apply applicable CAA provisions and EPA regulations to determine the approvability of the SIP. As we explained in our proposed notice, EPA regulations “require a minimum 30-day period for public comment on the information submitted by the owner or operator prior to construction.” 79 FR 21428. These regulations explicitly mandate that state SIP minor permitting regulations “include the opportunity for public comment on information submitted by owners and operators.” 40 CFR 51.160, 51.161(a). The regulations further require that the information available to the public “must include the agency's analysis of the effect of construction or modification on ambient air quality, including the agency's proposed approval or disapproval.” EPA's regulations specify that state SIP permitting procedures “shall include, as a minimum . . . a 30-day period for submittal of public comment.” These public participation requirements apply to “construction or modification”  6 of a “facility, building, structure or installation.”  7 Finally, the regulations require that public notice be sent to the EPA Regional Office and to all other state and local air pollution control agencies having jurisdiction in the region in which the new or modified source “will be located.” 40 CFR 51.161(d).

The State rule allows owners and operators to “initiate construction prior to issuance of the construction permit,” ARSD 74:36:20:02.01, and public notice is provided after construction. DENR's comment notes that notice of the construction permit is provided “before the applicant can operate any equipment.” Providing an opportunity for public comment before the applicant can operate the equipment does not meet the requirements in 40 CFR 51.161, as the State rules fail to provide the opportunity for comment prior to construction and therefore are inconsistent with EPA regulations. They also fail to provide either the public or EPA and local permitting authorities either notice or an opportunity to comment on where the facility “will be located.” Moreover, DENR's comment lacks any analysis of how the State rule, which provides for public participation after construction, is consistent with the regulatory requirements.

The comment suggests, but provides no evidence that, EPA's disapproval of this rule would give another state an advantage over South Dakota's economic development. Neither the CAA nor EPA's implementing regulations contain any specific requirement that we take economic development into account in determining the approvability of SIP amendments. While we are not required to consider economic development impacts, the State's comments provide no details regarding economic development impacts for us to consider. Additionally, DENR's SIP rules have contained the 30-day public comment period minor source permits for many years. 8 While the DENR's comments indicate that it has been implementing new rule ARSD 74:36:20:01.01 for approximately three years, 9 it provides no information regarding impacts to economic development in the State prior to implementation of the new program.

Finally, the comments suggest there are other state SIPs where EPA has approved less than the 30-day public comment period, and mentions Iowa, without, however, providing either citations to any relevant Iowa regulations or references to prior EPA interpretations. Therefore, we do not know what the comment refers to. To the extent EPA may have approved provisions in other SIPs that allow for less than the 30-day public comment period, as we explained in the proposed notice and this final action, our current interpretation of 40 CFR 51.161 is that it requires that state SIPs include a minimum of a 30-day period for submittal of public comments on proposed minor source permits.

Comment: DENR asserted that the CAA (Section 110(a)(2)(C)) and the federal regulations (40 CFR 51.160(a) and (b)) “do not state a construction permit must be issued prior to construction activities beginning.” For support of this assertion, DENR references EPA's preliminary comments on the proposed rules, 10 as well as EPA's mention in the proposed notice of prior approval of such programs. 11

Response: We disagree with this comment. The CAA contains provisions for the preconstruction review and approval of new and modified sources of air pollution, which are generally implemented by a state through a permitting program as part of an approved SIP, or in some cases by EPA. For minor sources, which are those sources that have the potential to emit below major source thresholds of the PSD and nonattainment NSR program, the CAA has specific requirements. Under CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), the state's SIP must provide for “the regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary source . . . as necessary to ensure that national ambient air quality standards are achieved.”  12 Therefore, all SIPs must contain minor source preconstruction approval programs. The CAA contains separate and distinct requirements for operating permits, which we are not reviewing in this action.

EPA's implementing regulations specify the requirements for minor NSR programs, and the relevant provisions are discussed here. 40 CFR 51.160-51.164. Each state SIP must set forth legally enforceable procedures which will allow the state to determine whether the construction or modification of a minor source, or a “minor modification” of an existing source, “will” (1) result in a violation of applicable portions of the State's control strategy, or (2) interfere with attainment of maintenance of any NAAQS in the State or in a neighboring state. 40 CFR 51.160(a). The SIP must also include the means by which a state can “prevent” construction that “will interfere with the attainment or maintenance of a national standard.” 40 CFR 51.160(b). Therefore, SIPs must require that owners or operators of source that are subject to minor NSR submit information to the state so the state can determine if the construction or modification of the source will result in a violation of the control strategy or interfere with attainment of maintenance of the NAAQS. 40 CFR 51.160(b). SIPs must also contain, among other elements, a “control strategy,” which is a combination of measures (including emission limitations and measures that apply to stationary sources) designed to achieve the reduction of emission necessary for attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. 40 CFR 51.100(n). Therefore, there are minimum statutory and regulatory requirements that apply to minor source permit programs, adherence to which is determined under the CAA by EPA. CAA section 110.

Under the current, federally-approved South Dakota SIP, minor sources are subject to the State's permitting requirements and must receive authorization to proceed with the construction or modification in accordance with the SIP, [ARSD 74:36:04:02], unless they meet exemption requirements in ARSD 74:36:04:03.

Under the State's proposed program that allows for initiating construction prior to issuance, the owner or operator may begin construction or modification if they meet two basic requirements: (1) Submit a permit application to the department; and (2) notify the department that they intend to initiate construction. ARSD 74:36:20:01.01(1), (2). Once these two requirements are met, the owner or operator may begin and complete construction or modification of true minor sources. ARSD 74:36:20:01.01(3), (4). The proposed rules do not require State review of the proposed construction or modification before the construction of modification occurs. The State rules also do not provide for the State to affirmatively approve the proposed modification or construction before it commences or before completion of the construction or modification. While there are provisions in the rule that cover activities after construction and modification, 13 there is no State administrative approval or review of any kind prior to construction activities. The State receives notice from the owner or operator before construction starts; however, there are no provisions in the rule that specify any action the State is to take regarding that notice or any mechanism to ensure preconstruction review and approval. Therefore, neither the State, public, nor EPA can determine whether the project will be in compliance with the CAA and implementing regulations before construction is initiated and completed.

The State rules allow construction to proceed, and provide for review of the construction while it is underway (or after the construction is complete). As discussed above, we interpret the CAA and implementing regulations to require regulation and approval of construction of any stationary source before the construction occurs, not as proposed by the State, review and approval construction in process or after it has occurred. While we have not interpreted the CAA and regulations to require that states implement the SIP requirement for a minor source program through the mechanism of a permitting program, we have required that SIPs include some mechanism for preconstruction review and approval of proposed minor sources before the activities commence. Such review and approval is necessary to determine whether the proposed construction or modification will violate a control strategy or interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS and to “prevent such construction or modification” that will do so as required by 51.160(a) and (b). 14 The proposed rules provide for State approval before the owner or operator begins operating the source and emitting pollutants but provide no mechanism to evaluate or prevent proposed construction. Therefore, the proposed changes to the SIP are incomplete as they lack the “legally enforceable procedures that enable” the State to make the necessary determination and ensure that the State “will prevent such construction” if the source “will” violate the control strategy or interfere with NAAQS attainment. Finally, the commenter appears to imply that our preliminary comments to the State are controlling or binding on our final action. As explained above, while we aim, and often do, provide comments early and throughout a state's rulemaking process, those comments are not final agency actions. There is nothing in the Act that requires such comments, much less that makes them binding on EPA such as to require that EPA approve a SIP that does not meet regulatory requirements. To the contrary, Congress entrusted with EPA an oversight role to ensure the requirements of the Act are met. Moreover, nothing in EPA's preliminary comments suggested that the State's draft rules would be approvable if the State were to make the suggested changes.

Comment: DENR also takes exception to EPA's implication that DENR's decision to approve or deny a permit would be influenced by a facility that has been built (the “equity in the ground” issue) and could potentially cause a violation of a NAAQS. The comments also note EPA's concerns expressed in the proposal regarding fundamental design issues that cannot be overcome should the State seek modifications to protect the NAAQS. DENR explains that: (1) The State rules require the owner or operator to assume these risks and make required changes before operation; (2) the State “has taken enforcement action when necessary on facilities that have violated their permits and/or that began construction and operation prior to obtaining the appropriate permits;” (3) since the State established its initial SIP in the 1970's “the construction and operation of a true minor source has not caused or interfered with attaining or maintaining a National Ambient Air Quality Standard;” and (4) if DENR believes a NAAQS would be violated, “DENR would prevent a source from operating until appropriate changes were made to protect” the NAAQS.

Response: EPA agrees in part with this comment. First, we acknowledge that there are some safeguards in the proposed rule; however, we remain concerned that there is no mechanism for either the public or local regulatory authorities with jurisdiction to comment on where “the source will be located.” And leaving aside the lack of regulatory and public input into siting decisions, after a source has been constructed there may remain fundamental design issues that cannot be overcome by the provisions in the proposed rules. Second, the comment indicates that the State has taken enforcement action where necessary; however, it provides no details regarding such actions. Third, the comment suggests that true minor sources have not caused or interfered with attaining or maintaining the NAAQS, but provides no evidence to support this statement and does not address the legal requirement for legally enforceable procedures to “prevent” construction of a source that “will” have such effects. Finally, the comments indicate that if DENR believes enforcement were necessary, it would prevent the source from “operating.” The comment does not include a reference to what authority the DENR would use for such enforcement. Moreover, the comment asserts that the State has authority to prevent source operation but does not attempt to assert that the program authorizes the state to “prevent such construction” as may violate the control strategy or interfere with attainment. EPA acknowledges that 74:36:20:02.01 (Initiating construction prior to permit issuance) has some safeguards in place; however, the rules fall short of meeting the requirements of the CAA and implementing regulations.

Comment: DENR indicates it “believes it has provided enough provisions in allowing construction prior to DENR completing its analysis (i.e., statement of basis) of the project and issuing a construction permit after a 30-day public comment period to protect” both the State's control strategy and the NAAQS. DENR explains this is demonstrated by approximately three years of program implementation. DENR also explains that the State is in full attainment with all the NAAQS.

Response: EPA disagrees with this comment because the final rule, as adopted by the State, allows no review or comment on siting decisions and does not require any type of administrative approval from the State prior to allowing unpermitted “construction” activities. Therefore, neither the State, public, nor EPA can evaluate siting decisions or determine whether the project “will” be in compliance with the CAA and implementing regulations before construction occurs. Regardless of South Dakota's current attainment status of the NAAQS, 74:36:20:02.01 does not meet the minimum requirements as outlined in the beginning of Section II of this rulemaking.

The fact that South Dakota has implemented the proposed changes to the SIP before EPA's final action, is not, as the comment appears to suggest, a basis for EPA approval. Under CAA section 116, a state may not implement any emission limitation or any control or abatement requirement that is less stringent than the applicable, approved SIP. The current SIP requires that sources obtain a permit from the State prior to construction. The proposed SIP revisions are less stringent than the existing SIP because they allow sources to construct without obtaining a permit prior to construction. Therefore, proposed SIP revisions violate CAA section 116 by exempting sources from the existing SIP requirement to obtain a permit before beginning construction.

Furthermore, as we explained in our proposal, Section 110(i) of the CAA specifically precludes states from changing requirements of the SIP except through SIP revisions approved by EPA. SIP revisions will be approved by EPA only if they meet all requirements of the Act and the implementing regulations. The CAA gives EPA both the authority and the obligation to review a proposed program's compliance with the Act and applicable regulations and to disapprove regulations that do not meet legal requirements. Therefore, a state's implementation of proposed SIP amendments prior to EPA approval, does not limit EPA's authority to take final rulemaking action to disapprove SIP provisions that the state has been implementing without SIP approval.

Finally, the commenter suggests the permit rules preventing sources from operating protect the State's control strategy and the NAAQS, and points to the State's attainment status for all the NAAQS. However, the commenter provides nothing further in its comments in the way of rationale and data to show that allowing unpermitted construction will ensure the State's continuing and future attainment status. CAA section 110(l) requires a demonstration that a SIP revision does not interfere with any requirement concerning attainment and maintenance of the NAAQs and that any relaxation is sufficiently protective of air quality and other CAA requirements in order for EPA to approve. The fact that the SIP submittal and the comments lack a demonstration (e.g., air quality monitoring data and trends, projected minor source participation and impacts, and emission inventory data and trends) to show that the minor source permitting rule revisions are not likely to interfere with NAAQS or the State's SIP control strategy provides further evidence that the SIP is not approvable. Without a demonstration from the State that shows the minor sources that are subject to this program will not impact attainment and maintenance, we have no information to determine the significance of the proposed rule and whether the sources will impact the NAAQS. Minor sources, either individually or collectively, may impact attainment. Finally, even if we assume the substitution of the new program for the prior minor source permit program were allowed under section 110(l), the State has provided no demonstration to show the new rules achieve the same results as the existing rules for these sources. Therefore, we lack information and a basis to approve these amendments to the SIP under section 110(1).

We have fully considered the comments we received, and have concluded that no changes from our proposed rule are warranted. As discussed in our proposal and this rule, our action is based on an evaluation of South Dakota's rules against the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(i), 110(l), 116, our minor source NSR regulations at 40 CFR 51.160-51.164, and other requirements discussed in section II of this action.

Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act contains the requirements for preconstruction review programs for minor sources and requires that each SIP include a program to regulate the construction and modification of stationary sources as necessary to assure that the NAAQS are achieved.

EPA's minor source implementing regulations are in 40 CFR 51.160-51.164. The regulations require that a SIP include “legally enforceable procedures that enable” the permitting agency to determine whether construction “will result in” interference with the NAAQS, 40 CFR 51.160(a). The SIP must also include the means by which a state or local agency can “prevent” construction that “will interfere with the attainment or maintenance of a national standard.” 40 CFR 51.160(b). 40 CFR 51.161(a) requires that the legally enforceable procedures in 40 CFR 51.160 must also require the state or local agency to provide opportunity for public comment on information submitted by owners or operators. The public information must include the agency's analysis of the effect of construction or modification on ambient air quality, including the agency's proposed approval or disapproval. 40 CFR 51.161(b) requires a minimum 30-day public comment period. Finally, the regulations require that public notice be sent to the EPA Regional Office and to all other state and local air pollution control agencies having jurisdiction in the region in which the new or modified source “will be located.” 40 CFR 51.161(d).

We are approving those rules that meet the relevant requirements and disapproving those rules that do not meet the relevant requirements, or are not appropriate for inclusion in the SIP. Specifically, we are disapproving 74:36:04:20:01 (Initiating Construction Prior to Permit Issuance), and the related phrase: “unless it meets the requirements in 74:36:20:02.01” in 74:36:04:20:02 (Construction Permit Required). We are disapproving the related phrase because it references the rule we are disapproving.

For a detailed description of the bases for our actions on the individual rules, please refer to our notice of proposed rulemaking (79 FR 21424) and our response to comments in section II of this action.

We are sensitive to the concerns expressed in the State's comments. We also understand the State's goals in promulgating rule 74:36:20:02.01, as expressed during the State's rulemaking, were to “expedite the construction of specific facilities that will have minimal impact to the ambient air and for those projects that may be impacted by inclement weather (i.e. winter months),”  15 “and to ensure that new businesses and existing businesses looking to expand are permitted in an expedited manner.”  16 79 FR 21428. If requested by South Dakota, EPA will work with the State to develop revised rules that are consistent with the State goals and consistent with the CAA and implementing regulations. 17

In this rulemaking, we are taking final action to: (1) Approve revisions to 74:36:01:01 (Definitions); 74:36:02 (Ambient Air Quality); 74:36:03 (Air Quality Episodes); 74:36:04 (Operating Permits for Minor Sources); 74:36:10 (New Source Review); 74:36:11 (Performance Testing); 74:36:12 (Control of Visible Emissions); 74:36:13 (Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems); 74:36:18 (Regulations for State Facilities in the Rapid City Area); and 74:36:20 (Construction Permits for New Sources or Modifications); (2) Disapprove 74:36:20:02.01 (Initiating Construction Prior to Permit Issuance), and the phrase “, unless it meets the requirements in 74:36:20:02.01” in 74:36:20:02 (Construction Permit Required); (3) Not take action on 74:36:05 (Operating Permits for Part 70 Sources); 74:36:07 (New Source Performance Standards); 74:36:08 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants); 74:36:09 (Prevention of Significant Deterioration); 74:36:16 (Acid Rain Program); and 74:36:19 (Mercury Budget Trading Program).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 26, 2014. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

In accordance with E.O. 13626 of September 10, 2012 (77 FR 56749, September 13, 2012), entitled, “Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration,” EPA is revising Subpart G of the NCP, 40 CFR part 300, to reflect the President's designation of the Administrator of EPA and the Secretary of Agriculture as additional trustees in connection with injury to, destruction of, loss of, or loss of use of natural resources, including their supporting ecosystems, resulting from the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. Section 5 of E.O. 13626 provides as follows:

Today EPA is issuing a final rule revising Subpart G of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan to reflect the designations for the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill discussed in Section 5 of the E.O.

E.O. 13626 is an exercise of the President's statutory authorities under section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) (33 U.S.C. 1321), section 1006 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) (33 U.S.C. 2706), and 3 U.S.C. 301. Under OPA section 1002, those responsible for oil spills are liable for, among other things, damages for injury to, destruction of, loss of, or loss of use of, natural resources, including the reasonable costs of assessing the damage. These damages are recoverable by a United States trustee, a State trustee, an Indian tribe trustee, or a foreign trustee. 33 U.S.C. 2702(b)(2)(A). Under OPA section 1006, Federal trustees are authorized to pursue claims for natural resource damages under 33 U.S.C. 2702(b)(2)(A) for natural resources belonging to, managed by, controlled by, or appertaining to the United States. 33 U.S.C. 2706(a). Designated Federal trustees are authorized to: Assess natural resource damages for the natural resources under their trusteeship; upon request of and reimbursement from a State or Indian tribe and at the Federal officials' discretion, assess damages for the natural resources under the State's or tribe's trusteeship; and develop and implement a plan for the restoration, rehabilitation, replacement, or acquisition of the equivalent, of the natural resources under their trusteeship. 33 U.S.C. 2706(c).

In compliance with Section 5 of E.O. 13626, today EPA is amending subsection 300.600(b) of Subpart G of the NCP to include a new paragraph (5).

The designation of the Administrator of EPA and the Secretary of Agriculture as trustees for the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill was effective upon the President's signature of E.O. 13626. This action merely conforms the NCP's trustee “listing” provisions for purposes of identifying the relevant trustees for a particular incident under OPA. See 40 CFR 300.3(b)(6); 59 FR 47385 (Sept. 15, 1994). This action is taken solely to comply with E.O. 13626 and includes no other amendments to the NCP or other regulatory action. This action applies to the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill only, and does not affect any prior or subsequent designations.

Regulations and procedures governing the conduct and functions of trustees for natural resources under OPA are provided in the NCP, and the Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) regulations at 15 CFR Part 990 issued by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) pursuant to OPA section 1006(e), 33 U.S.C. 2706(e).

Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. There is good cause to revise Subpart G of the NCP without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. Notice-and-comment rulemaking is unnecessary because this action is ministerial in nature. The President exercised his statutory authority under section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1321), section 1006 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2706), and 3 U.S.C. 301 to designate the Administrator and the Secretary as trustees and directed EPA to revise Subpart G of the NCP accordingly. There is no discretion to alter the designation and this is simply a revision to the text of the Code of Federal Regulations to reflect the designations made by the President. Providing an opportunity for notice and comment, therefore, is unnecessary.

There also is good cause under APA section 553(d)(3) for this revision to become effective on the date of publication of this action. Section 553(d)(3) of the APA allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in APA section 553(d)(3) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. This rule, however, does not create any new regulatory requirements or take other actions such that affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule takes effect. Rather, this action merely revises the listing of trustees in Subpart G of the NCP to reflect designations done by the President through E.O. 13626. For these reasons, there is good cause under APA section 553(d)(3) for this revision to become effective on the date of publication of this action.

This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This action merely revises the list of trustee designations in Subpart G of the NCP to reflect new designations the President made in E.O. 13626 and does not require the collection of any information.

Today's final rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), which generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or any other statute. This rule is not subject to notice and comment requirements under the APA or any other statute because it does not impose any requirements on any entity, including 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. 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 action merely revises the list of trustee designations in Subpart G of the NCP to reflect new designations the President made in E.O. 13626. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It does not create new binding legal requirements that substantially and directly affect Tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO 13045 because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

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 final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment.

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. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. This determination must be supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). As stated previously, EPA has made such a good cause finding, including the reasons therefore, and established an effective date of June 27, 2014. 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 . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

I. Background

In FR Doc. 2014-0505 (79 FR 13744), the final rule entitled “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2015; Final Rule” (hereinafter referred to as the 2015 Payment Notice), there was a technical error that is identified and corrected in the regulations text of this correcting amendment. The provision of this correcting amendment is effective June 26, 2014.

On page 13834 in the definition of “contributing entity at 45 CFR § 153.20, we inadvertently used the word “volume” instead of “value.” As detailed in the preamble of the 2015 Payment Notice (79 FR 13744, 13775), for purposes of the definition of contributing entity, “a de minimis amount means up to 5 percent, as measured by the amount of enrollment or claims processing transactions for non-pharmacy and non-excepted benefits which are outsourced, or by the value of the outsourced enrollment or claims processing transactions for non-pharmacy and non-excepted benefits (measured by the cost of the outsourced services compared to the sum of those costs plus the fully loaded costs—that is, including an appropriate share of indirect costs, such as fixed and overhead expenses—reasonably allocated, borne by the self-insured plan for such services).” Accordingly, we are revising the definition to include the correct word.

We ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register to provide a period for public comment before the provisions of a rule take effect in accordance with section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). However, we can waive this notice and comment procedure if the Secretary finds, for good cause, that the notice and comment process is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and incorporates a statement of the finding and the reasons therefore in the notice.

Section 553(d) of the APA ordinarily requires a 30-day delay in the effective date of final rules after the date of their publication in the Federal Register . This 30-day delay in effective date can be waived, however, if an agency finds for good cause that the delay is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and the agency incorporates a statement of the findings and its reasons in the rule issued.

This document merely corrects a technical error in the regulation text and does not change the policy set forth in the 2015 Payment Notice. Therefore, we believe that undertaking further notice and comment procedures to incorporate this correction and delay the effective date for this change is unnecessary. In addition, we believe it is important for the public to have the correct information as soon as possible, and believe it is contrary to the public interest to delay when they become effective. For the reasons stated previously, we find there is good cause to waive notice and comment procedures and the 30-day delay in the effective date for this correcting amendment.

Accordingly, 45 CFR is corrected by making the following correcting amendment to part 153:

In FR Doc. 2014-14488 appearing on page 35463 in the Federal Register of Friday, June 20, 2014, the following correction is made:

In FR Doc. 2014-14488, published on June 20, 2014 (79 FR 35461), make the following correction:

1. On page 35463, in the first column, footnote three is corrected to read as follows:

“  3  Consistent with 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(5), “air transportation” means “foreign air transportation, interstate air transportation, or the transportation of mail by aircraft.”

This rule to respond to a recent U.S. District Court decision in Conservation Law Foundation v. Pritzker, et al. (Case No. 1:13-CV-0821-JEB) provides information in a question in response format. The key questions are:

This section includes information on the fishing year (FY) 2013 remedy and information about carryover accounting for FY 2014 and beyond. Additional information on how this rule complies with applicable law is provided in the Classification section.

As a result of the Court order and remand in Conservation Law Foundation v. Pritzker, et al., we are implementing regulations that hold sectors accountable for using carryover of annual catch entitlement (ACE) from FY 2012 in FY 2013. The Court invalidated the carryover measures implemented in association with Framework Adjustment 50 (FW 50) to the NE Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP) because the measures failed to prevent total potential catches of certain stocks (ACEs plus carryovers) from exceeding their annual biological catches (ABCs). This action implements revised carryover measures for FY 2013 to comply with the Court's findings. The action does not delete the specific regulations invalidated by the Court at § 648.87(b)(1)(i)(C) because they were already removed, inadvertently, when FW 51 measures were implemented on May 1, 2014. This action requires an accountability measure for a sector that harvests its carryover catch from FY 2012 of a stock in FY 2013 if the cumulative sub-annual catch limit (ACL) for all sectors, and, the overall ACL of such stock is exceeded. The accountability measure is a pound-for-pound reduction (or “payback”) of that sector's FY 2014 ACE for an applicable stock equal to the amount of the carryover used after deducting a de minimis amount.

The following stepwise evaluation process provides a detailed explanation of when and how the payback accountability measure would be triggered and assessed:

Step 1: Has the total fishery-level ACL for a stock been exceeded?

• No—There is no reduction in FY 2014 ACE for that stock required (i.e., no repayment required). Other components of the fishery underutilized their available catch limits for that stock sufficient to offset any carryover used.

• Yes—Proceed to step 2.

Step 2: Has the sector sub-ACL (i.e., sum total of all sector ACE) been exceeded?

• No—There is no reduction in FY 2014 ACE for that stock required (i.e., no repayment required). Even though the total fishery-level ACL was exceeded, sectors collectively did not exceed their sub-ACL for that stock. While some sectors may have used carryover for that stock, other sectors did not or underutilized available ACE for that stock by enough to offset the carryover used, resulting in total catch less than the sub-ACL.

• Yes—Proceed to step 3.

Step 3: After sectors' FY 2013 catch reconciliation with NMFS has occurred, determine which sectors used FY 2012 carryover ACE for a stock. For each of those sectors, determine the amount of carryover used that must be deducted from that sector's FY 2014 ACE as follows:

• Step 3a: Subtract the de minimis carryover amount for that stock from the carryover amount used by the sector. The de minimis amount was recently determined to be 1 percent of the FY 2013 sector sub-ACL subdivided to the sectors according to their percent sector contribution per stock.

• Step 3b: Reduce the sector's FY 2014 ACE for that stock by the amount calculated in Step 3a. This is the equivalent to a pound-for-pound payback of FY 2012 carryover used minus the de minimis allowance.

We took action in May 2013 to clarify how unused multispecies sector ACE carried over from FY 2012 for use in FY 2013 would function. The clarification was made using Magnuson-Stevens Act section 305(d) authority and was put in place as part of the rulemaking for FW 50 to the FMP. The clarification described how carryover catch would be counted in evaluating if accountability measures were triggered because ACLs had been exceeded. In the FW 50 rulemaking, we also clarified how carryover accounting and accountability would function for FY 2014 and beyond. The FW 50 interim final rule published on May 3, 2013 (78 FR 26172), and the final rule published on August 29, 2013 (78 FR 53363).

Regulations implementing FW 50 measures stated that FY 2013 was the last year for which carried over catch, if used by sectors, would not be counted against ACLs to determine accountability, should overages occur. This had been the accounting practice since the establishment of the expanded sector program in 2010 (Amendment 16 to the FMP).

In developing FY 2013 measures, we recognized that the maximum carryover (10 percent of FY 2012 sector ACE), if used in conjunction with the much lower catch limits being put in place, could cause overages of the ACL, ABC and, for one stock, the overfishing limit (OFL). We explained these concerns in the FW 50 rulemaking. We put in place measures to maintain the previously described system in which carryover catch was not involved in the accountability measures evaluation. This was intended to be a transition year designed to help mitigate the negative impacts of much lower catch limits being implemented for FY 2013. Our general rationale in continuing this carryover approach for one more year was to avoid potential negative impacts on safe at-sea operations at the end of the fishing year and on sectors involving carryover use, leases, or trades that would result from a sudden, late-season change in carryover accounting practices. We also took emergency action to reduce the amount of Gulf of Maine cod carryover so that OFL would not be exceeded if available carryover and the ACL were fully utilized.

Our clarifying action in FW 50 also specified new carryover accountability measures for FY 2014 and beyond. We put in place measures that specified carryover catch, except for a nominal (“ de minimis” ) amount would be considered in determining accountability for catch limit overages under certain conditions. Specifically, carryover used would be subject to a pound-for-pound reduction in the next year's ACE for that stock when the total ACL is exceeded for a stock. A de minimis amount of used carried over catch would be exempt from reduction if the accountability measure was triggered. We exempted this small amount of carryover from the accountability measure so fishermen could plan for safe end-of-year fishing.

The FY 2013 carryover and other measures implemented by us in the FW 50 rules were challenged by the Conservation Law Foundation in U.S. District Court (District of Columbia). 1 On April 4, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that the FY 2013 carryover provisions violated the Magnuson-Stevens Act because the measures allowed for potential total catch levels (allocated sector ACEs plus 2012 carryover) to exceed the ABC. The Court vacated FY 2012 carryover provisions and remanded the issue to us to implement measures to prevent catches due to carryover from exceeding ABCs for each stock and to account for any overages of FY 2013 catch limits. The Court acknowledged that it was unlikely we could implement regulations to prevent catches from exceeding ABC before April 30, 2014, the end of FY 2013. The FY 2013 ABCs are available in the Framework Adjustment 50 interim final rule (May 3, 2013; 78 FR 26172). The Court noted that we could still implement measures to account and make-up for any overages of catch limits through a payback that would reduce 2014 sector allocations. The Court required us to notify the sectors and others as quickly as possible about the Court Order and our need to implement remedial measures to address the Order. The Court also expressed concern about minimizing disruption to the fishing industry in light of its ruling being issued with only weeks remaining in FY 2013.

We initially notified sector managers of the Court's decision on the day it was issued, April 4, 2014. An information bulletin was distributed to the industry and public on April 16, 2014, outlining details of the Court's decision and providing information on our initial plan to address the remand. This bulletin explained our intent to apply the FW 50 approach for FY 2014 and beyond as the FY 2013 carryover response. Under this approach, sectors using carryover could be held accountable for FY 2012 carryover used if the total catch exceeded the total stock-level FY 2013 ACL.

After substantial input from sectors, the New England Fishery Management Council, and others, a subsequent bulletin was issued on May 6, 2014, that modified the initial information. We outlined the modified approach for responding to the Court remand based on a two-tiered accountability evaluation that is being implemented by this rule. That is, sectors that used FY 2012 carryover ACE in FY 2013 for a particular groundfish stock will be held accountable to pay back the carryover used, except for a de minimis amount, from their FY 2014 ACE only if both the total ACL and sector sub-ACL are exceeded.

Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act authorizes NMFS, through delegation from the Secretary of Commerce, to take emergency action outside the Council process if the Secretary finds that an emergency involving a fishery exists. See, 16 U.S.C. 1855(c)(1) and (2). We previously issued guidance defining when “an emergency” involving a fishery exists. 62 FR 44421; August 21, 1997. This guidance defines an emergency as a situation that (1) arose from recent, unforeseen events, (2) presents a serious conservation problem in the fishery, and (3) can be addressed through interim emergency regulations for which the immediate benefits outweigh the value of advance notice, public comment, and the deliberative consideration of the impacts on participants to the same extent as would be expected under the formal rulemaking process. This action satisfies these criteria.

The April 4, 2014, decision from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia was both recent and unforeseen. The decision and order requires immediate action on our part to address what the Court found was a serious conservation problem. The FY 2013 carryover system provided a possibility that sectors could harvest fish in excess of the ABC.

The need to quickly provide regulatory information on the FY 2012 to FY 2013 carryover catch without the opportunity for prior public comment, as more fully discussed below in the CLASSIFICATION section, outweighs the value of the benefits that would be provided by standard Administrative Procedure Act notice-and-comment rulemaking. We have little discretion in complying with the Court's vacatur and remand. The Court decision stated that we violated the Magnuson-Stevens Act by allowing the carryover approach for FY 2013 as outlined in FW 50 because of the potential of harvesting fish stocks in excess of their ABCs. The scope of options that could be developed by us to address the remand were limited to accountability changes given the after-the-fact nature (i.e., rulemaking after the fishing year ended) and the need to ensure consistency with the FMP, National Standard 1 guidelines, and the Court's decision. The Court clearly articulated the need to expedite explanations of the impact to carryover resulting from the vacatur decision and for rulemaking to be completed in a timely manner for adequate accountability measures and to minimize disruptions to the fishing industry. Based on communications with sector managers and plaintiff Conservation Law Foundation following the April 16 bulletin, we revised the initial remand approach by providing some additional flexibility in the two-tiered approach (i.e., triggering accountability if both the total ACL and sector sub-ACL are exceeded). This approach maintains accountability at the ACL level, consistent with both the FMP and National Standard 1 guidelines. We believe that this approach also satisfies the Court's remand. Given the unforeseen circumstances, the limited scope of options available to address the remand, and the need to expeditiously implement regulations to address legal and conservation concerns, the use of Magnuson-Stevens Act section 305(c) rulemaking is necessary and justified.

We are also relying on the authority of section 305(d) of the Magnusson-Stevens Act to implement this action because that was the authority used to implement the 2013 carryover measures. It is appropriate to make these changes under the same authority. 16 U.S.C. 1855(d). Section 305(d) allows us to issue regulations to carry out a fishery management plan in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. In this case, carryover accounting must be changed to respond to the Court's order finding the FY 2013 approach violated the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Currently, catch information for FY 2013 is incomplete and it is not possible to fully determine if carryover-related accountability triggers have been or will be met in FY 2013. Final FY 2013 catch accounting for all fishery components, including information on state water and other fishery sub-component catch, will be available in September. In addition to modifications already implemented for the Weekly Sector ACE Comparison Reports that show catch, carryover, and the de minimis amount, per stock by sector, we will provide specific details if any accountability triggers are met, which would result in sectors having to pay back overages from FY 2014 ACE. We will enact the payback reduction of FY 2014 ACE, if necessary, through rulemaking. Further information on this process will be conveyed in Greater Atlantic Region Information Bulletins, as needed.

Based on catch information available through June 11, 2014, none of the ABCs for any of the stocks allocated to sectors have been exceeded due to recreational catch, except for Gulf of Maine haddock. The sector catch for most stocks remains below the sector sub-ACL meaning that the second criterion has not been met (i.e., exceeding sector sub-ACL) and no carryover-related accountability measure will be triggered even if the final total catch is above the total ACL. It is noteworthy that there are accountability measures that may still be enacted if the total catch does exceed ACL. Three stocks: Gulf of Maine haddock, American plaice, and witch flounder, all had varying levels of carryover use in FY 2013. Although the overall ACL for Gulf of Maine haddock has been exceeded, the sector sub-ACL has not. Thus, the carryover-repayment accountability measure is not triggered. American plaice total sector catch is also slightly below the sub-ACL even though some sectors made use of carryover. The sector sub-ACL for witch flounder has been exceeded but the overall ACL has not. Based on currently available information through June 11, 2014, the accountability triggers have not been met for any stock and no payback reduction of FY 2014 ACE for a stock has been determined to be necessary. It is possible that 6 sectors may be required to repay approximately 60,000 lb (27,216 kg) of carryover used if the total ACL is determined to have been exceeded when final catch data are available later this fall. We intend to update this information frequently as additional data become available.

Carryover Accounting for FY 2014 and Beyond. The Court decision was clear that we could not permit the total potential catch (i.e., the total of the ACL plus available carryover) to exceed the ABC for any given stock. The current FY 2014 carryover system was developed before the decision does not take into account the court's findings.

We will be providing guidance to the Council on what may be necessary to address the inconsistency between current carryover provisions and the Court's decision. This guidance may include advice that the Council take action to modify the FMP so carryover is consistent with the Court's decision. In the meantime, we may have to take action to ensure that potential catch does not exceed ABC for any particular stock in FY 2014.

The Assistant Administrator Fisheries, NOAA, finds that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to provide for prior notice and an opportunity for public comment. The opportunity for public comment, pursuant to authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), would be unnecessary, impracticable, and contrary to the public interest because NMFS has no discretion in implementing the measures of this rule. The changes implemented by this rule are necessary to respond immediately to a court-ordered remand. As such, the scope of options is very narrow and additional public comment is largely unnecessary given the lack of discretion available to develop alternative approaches that would satisfy the remand. Furthermore, the Court expressly stated that public notification and rulemaking should occur quickly as the remand was rendered with less than a month of the fishing year remaining. It would be unreasonable to delay rulemaking unnecessarily as sectors need to understand the implications of the Court decision and NMFS' approach to resolving the remand. For a limited time in the beginning of FY 2014, sectors have an opportunity to reconcile overages by trading or leasing ACE among themselves. It is important that sectors quickly understand how catch accounting is changed by this rule so they may pursue reconciliation options. While this information was previously provided to sectors, it is necessary to finalize the regulations that put in place the process NMFS outlined to the Court, sectors, and the public. It is also important that NMFS provide information on how the remaining accounting process will occur, which is also provided in this rule. To the extent that flexibility in the measures could be provided, NMFS has done so. While formal public comment was not sought through rulemaking, NMFS did consider feedback on potential approaches to satisfy the remand, provided by the plaintiffs Conservation Law Foundation, sector managers, the Council, and the public.

Similarly, the need to implement these measures in a timely manner to respond to the Court constitutes good cause under authority contained in 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), to make this rule effective upon publication in the Federal Register . Given the need to respond to the Court remand and to inform the public of the measures NMFS intended to implement through this rule so that they may plan for the changes, the provisions of this rule have already been conveyed to the public. Additional delay in making this rule's measures effective would be contrary to the public interest. Additionally, the public has already been notified in advance of the rule's publication what measures would be put in place. This is highly unusual, but was necessary given the timing of the Court's decision relative to the end of the fishing year.

This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

This emergency rule is exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and opportunity for public comment. Accordingly, no Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is required and none has been prepared.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended as follows:

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

Pursuant to the final 2014 and 2015 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (79 FR 12108, March 4, 2014), NMFS closed the directed fishery for yellowfin sole for the BSAI trawl limited access sector on May 18, 2014 (79 FR 29136, May 21, 2014) under § 679.21(e)(7)(v).

As of June 18, 2014, NMFS has determined that approximately 60 metric tons of 2014 Pacific halibut bycatch allowance specified for vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access yellowfin sole fishery remains unharvested as established by the final 2014 and 2015 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (79 FR 12108, March 4, 2014) and reapportionment published in the Federal Register on June 25, 2014. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.25(a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(i)(C), and (a)(2)(iii)(D), and to fully utilize the 2014 TAC of yellowfin sole for the BSAI trawl limited access sector in the BSAI, NMFS is terminating the previous closure and is opening directed fishing for yellowfin sole for the BSAI trawl limited access sector in the BSAI. This will enhance the socioeconomic well-being of harvesters in this area. The Administrator, Alaska Region (Regional Administrator) considered the following factors in reaching this decision: (1) The current catch of yellowfin sole and halibut PSC by the BSAI trawl limited access sector in the BSAI and, (2) the harvest capacity and stated intent on future harvesting patterns of vessels in participating in this fishery.

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and § 679.25(c)(1)(ii) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the opening of yellowfin sole for the BSAI trawl limited access sector in the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of June 20, 2014.

The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

Without this inseason adjustment, NMFS could not allow the fishery for yellowfin sole for the BSAI trawl limited access sector in the BSAI to be harvested in an expedient manner and in accordance with the regulatory schedule. Under § 679.25(c)(2), interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this action to the above address until July 9, 2014.

This action is required by §§ 679.20, 679.21, and 679.25 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.