On January 28, 2008, the President signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Pub. L. 110-181), which created SIGAR. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 522a) (PA), and certain portions of the Ethics in Government Act and Executive Order 12958, as amended, provide for access by the public to records of executive branch agencies, subject to certain restrictions and exemptions. In order to establish procedures to facilitate public interaction with SIGAR, 5 CFR part 9301 sets forth the SIGAR's regulations implementing the access provisions of those statutes and the Executive Order. The modification to the system, Investigations Records, SIGAR-08, will support the vetting of directors, officers, or other employees of organizations who apply for U.S. Government contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, or other funding. The information collected from these organizations and individuals is specifically used to conduct screening to ensure that U.S. Government funds are not used to provide support to entities or individuals deemed to be a risk to U.S. national security interests. The records may contain criminal investigation records, investigatory material for law enforcement purposes, and confidential source information. SIGAR proposes to amend 5 CFR part 9301 to exempt portions of the Investigations Records system of records from subsections (c)(3) and (4), (d), (e)(1), (2), and (3), (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I), (e)(5) and (8), (f), (g), and (h) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a), pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a (j)(2) and from subsections (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I), and (f) of the Privacy Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a (k)(1), (k)(2), and (k)(5).

This interim final rule establishes exemptions to SIGAR's existing regulations implementing the provisions of the FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552) and the PA. The provisions of this subpart shall apply to all components of SIGAR. The FOIA provides for the disclosure of agency records and information to the public, unless that information is exempted under delineated statutory exemptions under the FOIA. The Privacy Act serves to safeguard public interest in informational privacy by delineating the duties and responsibilities of federal agencies that collect, store, and disseminate personal information about individuals. The procedures established here are intended to ensure that SIGAR fully satisfies its responsibility to the public to disclose agency information while simultaneously safeguarding individual privacy.

The Privacy Act serves to balance the Government's need to maintain information about individuals with the rights of individuals to be protected against unwarranted invasions of their privacy stemming from federal agencies' collection, maintenance, use, and disclosure of personal information about them. Agencies are required to issue regulations outlining the agency's rules and procedures for implementation of the Privacy Act and its provisions within the agency. This includes procedures on how individuals may request access to information about themselves, request amendment or correction of those records, and request an accounting of disclosures of their records by SIGAR.

This Interim Final rule amends SIGAR's implementing the FOIA and the Privacy Act to facilitate the interaction of the public with SIGAR. SIGAR's policy of disclosure follows the Presidential Memorandum of January 21, 2009, “Transparency and Openness,” 74 FR 4685, and the Attorney General's March 19, 2009 FOIA policy guidance, advising Federal agencies to apply a presumption of disclosure in FOIA decision making. This Interim Final Rule parallels the procedures currently used by other agencies to implement the FOIA and the Privacy Act. SIGAR has determined that good cause exists to publish this amendment to its FOIA and Privacy Act regulations as an interim final rule. This amendment clarifies exemptions regarding the public's access to information about SIGAR and about themselves maintained by SIGAR. The absence of well-defined exemptions to the Privacy Act regulations could impair the confidentiality and privacy rights of those who submit sensitive information to SIGAR as well as the ability of SIGAR to use that information to carry out its statutory mission. SIGAR has determined that this interim rule should be issued without a delayed effective date pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

Finally, notice of proposed rulemaking is not required, because the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6) do not apply. It has been determined that this rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action for the purposes of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, a regulatory impact analysis is not required.

For the reasons set forth above, SIGAR amends 5 CFR part 9301 as follows:

This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 906, as amended (7 CFR part 906), regulating the handling of oranges and grapefruit grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

USDA is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.

The handling of oranges and grapefruit grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas is regulated by 7 CFR part 906. Prior to this change, the minimum size requirement for grapefruit was 3-5/16 inches in diameter (size 56) and size 56 fruit had to meet a minimum grade of a U.S. No. 1. The Texas Valley Citrus Committee (Committee) believes there is a shortage of fruit available to supply the fresh fruit market, which the Texas citrus growers and handlers should fill. The Committee also recognized that consumers are now showing a preference for smaller-sized fruit. The Committee believes relaxing the requirements makes more fruit available to fill the market shortfall and provides smaller-sized fruit to meet consumer demand. Therefore, this rule continues in effect the rule that relaxed the minimum size requirement for grapefruit from 3-5/16 inches (size 56) to 3 inches (size 64) in diameter and relaxed the minimum grade for a size 56, establishing a minimum grade of “Texas Choice” for both size 56 and size 64 grapefruit.

In an interim rule published in the Federal Register on February 28, 2014, and effective March 1, 2014, (79 FR 11295, Doc. No. AMS-FV-14-0015, FV14-906-2 IR), § 906.356 was amended by changing the minimum size requirement for grapefruit from 3-5/16 inches (size 56) to 3 inches (size 64) in diameter. Section 906.340 was also revised by adding size 64 to the available pack sizes for grapefruit listed under Table II, and by adding language concerning pack and sizing requirements as appropriate. In addition, this rule changed the minimum grade requirement for size 56 fruit from a U.S. No. 1 to a “Texas Choice” and established the minimum grade for a size 64 as a “Texas Choice.”

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.

There are 13 registered handlers of Texas citrus who are subject to regulation under the marketing order and approximately 150 producers of grapefruit in the regulated area. Small agricultural service firms, which include handlers, are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $7,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

According to National Agricultural Statistics Service data, the average f.o.b. price for Texas grapefruit during the 2012-13 season was $24.10 per box, and total fresh shipments were approximately 3 million boxes. Using the average f.o.b. price and shipment data, and considering a normal distribution, the majority of Texas grapefruit handlers could be considered small businesses under SBA's definition. In addition, based on production data, grower prices, and the total number of Texas citrus growers, the average annual grower revenue is below $750,000. Thus, the majority of handlers and producers of grapefruit may be classified as small entities.

This rule continues in effect the action that relaxed the size and grade requirements for grapefruit prescribed under the order. This rule relaxes the minimum size requirement for grapefruit from 3 5/16 inches (size 56) to 3 inches (size 64). This action also relaxes the minimum grade requirement for size 56 fruit from a U.S. No. 1 to a “Texas Choice” and establishes the minimum grade for size 64 as a “Texas Choice.” These changes make additional fruit available for shipment to the fresh market, maximize shipments, provide additional returns to handlers and growers, and respond to consumer demand for small-sized fruit. This rule amends the provisions in §§ 906.340 and 906.356. Authority for these changes is provided in § 906.40.

This action is not expected to increase costs associated with the order's requirements. Rather, it is anticipated that this action will have a beneficial impact. Reducing size and grade requirements makes additional fruit available for shipment to the fresh market. The Committee believes that this provides additional fruit to fill a shortage in the fresh market and provides the opportunity to fulfill a growing consumer demand for smaller sized fruit. This action also provides an outlet for fruit that may otherwise go unharvested, maximizing fresh shipments and increasing returns to handlers and growers. The benefits of this rule are expected to be equally available to all fresh grapefruit growers and handlers, regardless of their size.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0189, Generic Fruit Crops. No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

This rule will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Texas citrus handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. In addition, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule.

Further, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Texas citrus industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations. Like all Committee meetings, the December 11, 2013, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue.

Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or before April 29, 2014. No comments were received. Therefore, for the reasons given in the interim rule, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule, without change.

To view the interim rule, go to: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=AMS-FV-14-0015-0001 .

This action also affirms information contained in the interim rule concerning Executive Orders 12866, 12988, 13175, and 13563; the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35); and the E-Gov Act (44 U.S.C. 101).

After consideration of all relevant material presented, it is found that finalizing the interim rule, without change, as published in the Federal Register (79 FR 11295, February 28, 2014) will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

This final rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 983, both as amended (7 CFR part 983), regulating the handling of pistachios grown in California, Arizona, and New Mexico, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13175, and 13563.

This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect.

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

This final rule revises the aflatoxin sampling regulations currently prescribed under the order. This rule allows the use of mechanical samplers (auto-samplers) as an additional method to obtain lot samples for aflatoxin analysis. All auto-samplers will need to be approved by and be subject to procedures and requirements established by the USDA Federal-State Inspection Service prior to their use. This rule will be in effect indefinitely until amended, suspended, or terminated, and was unanimously recommended by the Committee at its meeting held on August 19, 2013.

Section 983.50 of the order provides authority for aflatoxin regulations that establish aflatoxin sampling, analysis, and inspection requirements applicable to pistachios to be shipped for human consumption in domestic and export markets. Aflatoxin regulations are currently in effect for pistachios shipped to domestic markets.

Section 983.150 of the order's rules and regulations contains specific requirements regarding sampling and testing of pistachios for aflatoxin. Paragraph (d)(1) of that section provides that a sample shall be drawn from each lot of pistachios and such samples shall meet specific weight requirements according to the size of the lot.

The current method of collecting samples of pistachios to be tested requires hand sampling of static lots by, or under the supervision of, an inspector of the Federal-State Inspection Service (inspector). This process requires handler personnel to stage the lots to be sampled, which requires moving large containers around with a forklift. This process utilizes a considerable amount of time and warehouse space. Inspectors are then required to manually conduct the sampling by drawing samples from the containers, which is very labor intensive. Once the lot sample is collected, the inspector prepares test samples for aflatoxin analysis.

Since the order's promulgation in 2004, the volume of open inshell pistachios processed annually has increased significantly, from 165 million pounds to 385 million pounds in the 2012-13 production year. This change in volume has significantly increased the amount of warehouse space and handler labor needed to stage lots for sampling. It has also driven up the total labor costs associated with sampling, as the number of lots to be sampled has increased significantly.

With the implementation of this rule, handlers will have the option of using mechanized sampling instead of manual sampling. Automatic samplers in handlers' processing facilities will mechanically draw samples of pistachios as they are being processed. This will make the sampling process more efficient by eliminating the extra warehouse space and handler labor needed for staging static lots for sampling. In addition, the labor costs of manual sampling will be eliminated, further reducing handler costs. A discussion of the costs is included in the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis section of this document.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.

There are approximately 20 handlers of California, Arizona, and New Mexico pistachios subject to regulation under the order and approximately 1,040 pistachio producers in the regulated area. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts of less than $7,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000.

Currently, about 70 percent of handlers ship less than $7,000,000 worth of pistachios on an annual basis and would be considered small businesses under the SBA definition. Data provided by the Committee regarding the 2013 crop indicates that approximately 80 percent of producers delivered less than 300,000 pounds of assessable dry weight pistachios. Using an estimated price of $2.50 per pound of pistachios, this would equate to less than $750,000 in receipts; thus, 80 percent of producers would be considered small businesses according to the SBA definition.

This final rule modifies the aflatoxin sampling regulations currently prescribed under § 983.150(d) of the order's rules and regulations. This rule allows the use of auto-samplers as a method to obtain samples for aflatoxin analysis. Previously, only manual hand-drawn sampling from static lots was permitted. Allowing the use of auto-samplers for in-line sampling will streamline the sampling process for pistachios. It is expected to make the sampling process more efficient by eliminating the time and space needed for staging and inspecting static lots, reducing the amount of labor, and therefore reducing handler costs. Authority for this action is provided in § 983.50 of the order.

The Committee estimates the current method of sampling to range in cost from $135 to $170 per lot. This expense includes the warehouse space and employee labor needed to stage a lot for inspection and the costs of the inspection. The initial expense of purchasing an auto-sampler ranges from as low as $1,000 to as high as $5,000. The cost of collecting samples with the auto-sampler is estimated at about $5 per lot, which is significantly lower than the static lot sampling method, which ranges from $135 to $170 per lot.

The following example is used to illustrate potential savings for a handler that processes 3,000,000 pounds of pistachios per year. Assuming a lot size of 50,000 pounds, this handler would require inspection on 60 lots of pistachios (3,000,000 / 50,000). Under the current manual sampling method, this would result in a total sampling cost of $8,100 (60 × $135). If this handler purchased an automatic sampler for $5,000, the total sampling cost (including equipment) would be $5,300 ($5,000 + $5 cost per lot to pull the samples). Thus, in this example the handler would save $2,800 in the first year of operation. After the first year, the savings would increase because there would be no additional equipment cost. Applying this on an industry-wide basis, the aggregate cost savings could be significant, considering recent shipment levels have exceeded 300,000,000 pounds of pistachios.

Based on these cost estimates and the example provided, use of automatic samplers can provide a significant cost saving to the industry. The potential cost savings for individual handlers will vary, depending on the size and structure of their operation. Each handler will need to evaluate their operation to determine which method of sampling best fits their needs. This rule will provide an additional option for sampling that does not currently exist for handlers.

The Committee discussed alternatives to this change, including continuing to operate under the current aflatoxin sampling procedures. However, the Committee unanimously agreed that adding the option to use mechanical sampling equipment will provide handlers with a more efficient and cost-effective sampling alternative to the manual sampling process.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0215, Pistachios Grown in California, Arizona, and New Mexico. No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

This final rule modifies aflatoxin sampling regulations currently prescribed under the California, Arizona, and New Mexico pistachio marketing order. Accordingly, this action will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large pistachios handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule.

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

In addition, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the pistachio industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the August 19, 2013, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue.

A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the Federal Register on March 18, 2014 (79 FR 15050). Copies of the rule were emailed to all Committee members and pistachio handlers. Finally, the rule was made available through the internet by USDA and the Office of the Federal Register. A 30-day comment period ending April 17, 2014, was provided to allow interested persons to respond to the proposal. One comment was received after the designated comment period closed. Accordingly, no changes were made to the rule as proposed.

A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Jeffrey Smutny at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

After consideration of all relevant matter presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 983 is amended as follows:

This final rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 985 (7 CFR part 985), as amended, regulating the handling of spearmint oil produced in the Far West (Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and designated parts of Nevada and Utah), hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.

This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform and is not intended to have retroactive effect.

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

This final rule revises the procedure currently prescribed for issuing additional allotment base for Class 1 (Scotch) and Class 3 (Native) spearmint oil to new and existing producers under the order's volume control provisions. This rule: (1) Reduces the number of allocations of additional allotment base issued to new producers each year from three to two for each class of oil; (2) temporarily changes the method by which additional allotment base is issued to existing producers to take into account producers whose total allotment base is below the size of the minimum economic enterprise (MEE) required to produce each class of spearmint oil; (3) provides that additional allotment base issued to existing producers under the revised procedure cannot be used to replace allotment base that has been previously transferred away; and (4) provides that additional allotment base issued under the revised procedure cannot be transferred to another producer for at least five years following issuance. This rule was recommended unanimously by the Committee at a meeting on November 6, 2013.

Under the order, volume control measures are authorized to regulate the marketing of spearmint oil. Regulation is currently effectuated through the issuance of allotment bases to producers, the establishment of annual salable quantities and allotment percentages, and the reserve pooling of excess production. Allotment base is each producer's quantified share of the spearmint oil market based on a statistical representation of past spearmint oil production, with accommodation for reasonable and normal adjustments to such base. The order's provisions allow for the regulation of spearmint oil volume available to the market. The objective of regulation is to establish orderly marketing conditions for spearmint oil and to ensure that there is sufficient spearmint oil supply available to meet market requirements. Since the program's inception, volume regulation has been instrumental in promoting market and price stability within the industry.

The order contains provisions to ensure that there is orderly market expansion and that new producers are able to produce and market spearmint oil. Section 985.53(d)(1) of the order requires the Committee to annually make additional allotment bases available for each class of oil in the amount of no more than 1 percent of the total allotment base for that class of oil. Fifty percent of these additional allotment bases shall be made available to new producers and 50 percent made available to existing producers.

Section 985.53(d)(3) requires the Committee, with the approval of the Secretary, to establish rules and regulations to be used for determining the distribution of additional allotment bases. In 1982, these rules and regulations were established and have been subsequently revised on several occasions, most recently in 2003. Each time a revision is made, the Committee considers several important factors which include; the size of the MEE required for spearmint oil production, the applicant's ability to produce spearmint oil, the area where the spearmint oil will be produced, and other economic and marketing factors that have a direct impact on spearmint oil producers. The Committee reviews regularly and updates as needed, the size of the MEE required for spearmint oil production. Under the order, MEE is the minimum size of production operation that the Committee has determined to be economically viable for each class of spearmint oil. Between 1982 and 1997, the Committee revised the MEE for Scotch spearmint oil production three times and Native spearmint oil production four times. As a result, the MEE increased from 1,200 pounds to 3,000 pounds for Scotch spearmint oil, and from 1,800 pounds to 3,400 pounds for Native spearmint oil.

Section 985.153(c)(1) of the order's administrative rules and regulations prescribes the method by which additional allotment base is issued to new producers. In addition, § 985.153(c)(2) prescribes the procedure by which additional allotment base is issued to existing producers. Lastly, § 985.153(d) specifies certain requirements for spearmint oil producers who are issued additional allotment base pursuant to § 985.153(c)(1) and (c)(2).

The Committee met on November 6, 2013, to consider the procedures for issuing additional allotment base to new and existing producers and to make recommendations regarding the revision of those procedures. As required by § 985.153(c)(1)(ii), the Committee first considered the size of the MEE required to produce each class of spearmint oil. The Committee determined that the MEE levels for both classes of spearmint oil were no longer representative and needed to be revised. The Committee recognized that, as production and cultural practices for spearmint oil have continued to change and production costs per acre have increased, the Committee's previously established MEE levels are too low and should be revised. As such, the Committee concluded that the MEE thresholds had increased to 5,121 pounds for Scotch spearmint oil and 5,812 pounds for Native spearmint oil.

As a result of the Committee's determination that the MEE thresholds have increased, and given the quantity of additional allotment base available to new producers each year ( 1/2 of 1 percent of the total allotment base for each class of oil), the additional allotment base issued each year is only enough for two new producers, instead of three for each class of oil.

The Committee's initial calculation of the total allotment base of Scotch spearmint oil during the 2014-2015 marketing year is approximately 2,089,146 pounds. One half of one percent of this amount is 10,445 pounds. With the MEE for Scotch spearmint oil determined to be 5,121 pounds, issuing allotment base to two new producers will require 10,242 pounds, which is within the amount of additional allotment base that will be available for the year.

Likewise, the Committee's initial calculation of the total allotment base of Native spearmint oil during the 2014-2015 marketing year is approximately 2,371,350 pounds. One half of one percent of this amount is 11,856 pounds. With the MEE for Native spearmint oil determined to be 5,812 pounds, issuing allotment base to two new producers will require 11,624 pounds, which is within the amount of additional allotment base that will be available for the year.

Based on the above information, the Committee unanimously recommended reducing the number of new producers that are issued additional allotment base each year from three to two for each class of oil. The Committee also recommended that the additional allotment base issued to new producers not be transferrable for at least five years following issuance. The current retention period prior to transferability is two years. New producers issued additional allotment base under this rule will continue to be required to submit evidence of an ability to produce and sell oil from such allotment base in the first marketing year following issuance of such base.

The Committee also gave consideration to existing producers with regards to the size of the MEE required to produce spearmint oil and the allocation of additional allotment base. After analyzing the Committee's records, the Committee found that some existing producers hold allotment bases that are below the revised MEE levels. As a result, the Committee unanimously recommended that the additional allotment base that is made available each year to existing producers be temporarily allocated first to those eligible producers who hold allotment bases that are less than the MEE threshold in order to bring their total up to that level.

Under this final rule, existing Scotch spearmint oil producers whose allotment bases are less than 5,121 pounds as of October 17, 2012, who apply and who have the ability to produce additional quantities of spearmint oil, will be issued sufficient additional allotment base to bring them up to the MEE threshold over a three-year period extending through the 2016-2017 marketing year. In addition, existing Native spearmint oil producers who hold allotment bases of less than 5,812 pounds as of October 17, 2012, who apply and who have the ability to produce additional quantities of spearmint oil, will be issued sufficient additional allotment base to bring them up to the MEE threshold over a four-year period extending through the 2017-2018 marketing year.

The Committee estimates there will be 21 producers of Scotch spearmint oil and 30 producers of Native spearmint oil eligible for additional allotment base under this final rule. It is expected that eligible existing producers of both Scotch and Native spearmint oil will apply for the full amount of additional allotment base made available to them. If there is any unallocated additional allotment base remaining for either Scotch spearmint oil during the 2016-2017 marketing year, or Native spearmint oil during the 2017-2018 marketing year, such amount will be distributed on a prorated basis among all existing producers of each respective class of spearmint oil.

The Committee also recommended that additional allotment base issued to producers under the revised procedure not be used to replace allotment base that has been previously transferred away by that producer and that additional allotment base issued under the revised procedure not be transferrable for at least five years following issuance.

Since the establishment of the order, one of the Committee's primary objectives has been to help ensure that all spearmint oil producers are economically viable, as evidenced by holding allotment bases that are above the minimum economic threshold required for spearmint oil production. The Committee has worked to meet this objective by regularly determining the size of the MEE and issuing additional allotment base accordingly. Specifically, the Committee has raised the quantity of allotment base issued to new producers and increased the allotment bases of those existing producers who hold allotment bases that are below the levels that comprise the minimum economic threshold required for spearmint oil production.

Another Committee objective has been to issue as many additional allotment bases as possible to new producers, at levels considered economically viable to each recipient. However, since the order limits the amount of additional allotment base issued to new producers, and because the size of the MEE required for spearmint oil production must be considered, the Committee has found it necessary to limit the number of new producers that are issued additional allotment base each year. Therefore, given the circumstances, the Committee believes the combination of these actions provides the best method available for optimizing the number of new producers that enter and remain in business, and also helps assure that there will continue to be a broad base of spearmint oil production.

The procedure for issuing additional allotment base to new and existing producers has been modified several times since the inception of the order. Between 1982 and 1991, the entire Far West spearmint oil production area was treated as a single region for the purpose of issuing additional allotment base to new producers. The Committee determined the size and number of economic enterprises of additional allotment base for each class of spearmint oil to be made available to new producers. The additional allotment bases were then issued to new producers drawn from the lot of eligible individuals who had requested additional allotment base.

In 1991, the order's administrative rules and regulations were modified through the rulemaking process to divide the production area into four regions for purposes of issuing additional allotment base to new producers. An equal number of allotment bases were issued to new producers in each region based on the amount of additional allotment base available and the MEE determined by the Committee. Based on the Committee's determinations, this effectively allowed one new producer annually from each of the four regions to be issued additional allotment base, for each class of spearmint oil.

Again in 1997, rulemaking action was taken to reorganize and reduce the number of regions within the Far West production area from four to three. This revision had the effect of reducing the number of new producers that were issued additional allotment bases each year from four to three for each class of spearmint oil. The Committee recommended the revision with the purpose of distributing additional allotment bases within the production area and to increase the size of allotment bases issued to new producers to correspond to the size of the MEE. The Committee had determined that the size of the MEE for spearmint oil production had increased to a point where there was insufficient additional allotment base to issue economically sufficient quantities of base to new producers in all four regions. By reorganizing and reducing the number of regions to three, there was adequate additional allotment base to issue base to three new producers of each class of spearmint oil. In reaching its recommendation, the Committee weighed the importance of issuing as many additional allotment bases as possible against the need to issue such bases at levels considered economically viable to each recipient.

In 2000, the three regions of the Far West production area were further reduced to two regions through the rulemaking process. However, the number of new producers issued additional allotment bases each year was maintained at three for each class of spearmint oil. As before, the Committee recommended the revision with the purpose of distributing additional allotment bases to new spearmint oil producers throughout the production area.

This final rule reduces the number of new producers issued additional allotment base each year from three to two for each class of spearmint oil and is consistent with previous rulemaking. The Committee's purpose, previously and now, is to ensure that a maximum number of eligible new producers are issued additional allotment bases each year at levels that are economically viable to produce each class of spearmint oil.

Consistent with actions taken in the past, the Committee made its recommendation after carefully considering information available from its management records, Federal and State government sources, and industry participants. The Committee also considered the size of the MEE required for the production of each class of spearmint oil, historical statistics relating to the locations of the producers applying for the annual additional allotment base, and other factors, such as number of producers in the regulated production area and the amount of allotment base held by such producers. Based on its review, the Committee believes that the revision effectuated by this final rule is the most effective option available in order to continue fulfilling the order's objectives.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.

There are eight spearmint oil handlers subject to regulation under the order. In addition, there are approximately 36 producers of Scotch spearmint oil and approximately 91 producers of Native spearmint oil in the regulated production area. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $7,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

Based on the SBA's definition of small entities, the Committee estimates that two of the eight handlers regulated by the order could be considered small entities. Most of the handlers are large corporations involved in the manufacture and trade of essential oils and the products of essential oils in the international market. In addition, the Committee estimates that 19 of the 36 Scotch spearmint oil producers and 29 of the 91 Native spearmint oil producers could be classified as small entities under the SBA definition. Thus, many handlers and producers of Far West spearmint oil may not be classified as small entities.

The Far West spearmint oil industry is characterized by producers whose farming operations generally involve more than one commodity, and whose income from farming operations is not exclusively dependent on the production of spearmint oil. A typical spearmint oil-producing operation has enough acreage for rotation such that the total acreage required to produce the crop is about one-third spearmint and two-thirds rotational crops. Thus, the typical spearmint oil producer has to have considerably more acreage than is planted with spearmint during any given season. Crop rotation is an essential cultural practice in the production of spearmint oil for purposes of weed, insect, and disease control. To remain economically viable with the added costs associated with spearmint oil production, a majority of spearmint oil-producing farms fall into the SBA category of large businesses.

Small spearmint oil producers generally are not as extensively diversified as larger ones and as such, are more at risk from market fluctuations. Such small producers generally need to market their entire annual allotment and do not have the luxury of having other crops to cushion seasons with poor spearmint oil returns. Conversely, large diversified producers have the potential to endure one or more seasons of poor spearmint oil markets because income from alternate crops could support the operation for a period of time. Being reasonably assured of a stable market and price provides small producing entities with the ability to maintain sufficient cash flow and to meet annual expenses. Thus, the market and price stability provided by the order potentially benefits small producers more than the large producers.

This final rule revises the procedure for issuing additional allotment base by reducing the number of additional allotment bases issued to new producers from three to two, for each class of spearmint oil. In addition, this rule increases the required retention period prior to transferability of additional allotment base issued to new producers from two years to five years following issuance.

This final rule also temporarily changes the procedures for the allocation of additional allotment base by class to take into account existing producers that are below the MEE threshold. This revision is intended to help existing small spearmint oil producers by increasing their individual allotment bases to a level that approximates the MEE required for spearmint oil production. The action will help ensure that small existing spearmint oil producers have sufficient allotment base to remain economically viable in the future. Also, this rule provides that additional allotment base issued to existing small producers cannot be used to replace allotment base which has been previously transferred away. Finally, this rule provides that additional allotment base issued under the revised procedure cannot be transferred for at least five years following issuance. The revised procedure by which additional allotment base is allocated to existing producers will be in effect temporarily through May 31, 2017, for Scotch spearmint oil, and May 31, 2018, for Native spearmint oil, or until all producers who are eligible and apply have received enough allotment base to bring them up to the respective MEE level for each class of oil. Authority for this action is provided in § 985.53(d)(3) of the order.

At the meeting on November 6, 2013, the Committee discussed the impact of the recommended revisions on handlers and producers in terms of costs and returns. Under the order, the Committee is responsible for determining how much MEE is required to produce each class of spearmint oil. The Committee determined the MEE size for the 2014-2015 and subsequent marketing years to be 5,121 pounds for Scotch spearmint oil and 5,812 pounds for Native spearmint oil. Taking this information into consideration, the Committee calculated that the number of new producers issued additional allotment bases each year would need to be reduced from three to two for each class of oil. While this action reduces the number of new producers issued additional allotment bases each year, each new producer will have a larger initial allotment base, thereby enhancing their long term economic viability in the spearmint oil industry.

Additionally, the Committee estimates there are 21 producers of Scotch spearmint oil whose allotment bases are below the MEE threshold and it will take a total of 21,913 pounds of additional allotment base to raise these producers' allotment bases up to the Scotch spearmint oil MEE threshold. Likewise, the Committee estimates there are 30 producers of Native spearmint oil whose allotment bases are below the MEE level and that it will take a total of 43,456 pounds of additional allotment base to raise these producers' allotment bases to the size of the MEE required to make Native spearmint oil.

While the amount of additional allotment base necessary to bring all spearmint oil producers' allotment bases up to the MEE threshold is a fraction of the total allotment base, the benefits of this final rule will be significant to these small producers, as it may contribute to their potential economic viability well into the future. Without this revision, small spearmint oil producers may have been at a greater risk of not being able to continue to produce spearmint oil. Therefore, the benefits of this rule are expected to be greater for small producers than for larger entities.

The Committee discussed several alternatives to the recommendations contained in this rule including not making any changes to the procedures as currently prescribed in the order. However, the Committee determined that not taking the MEE threshold into consideration when issuing additional base would have negatively impacted new and existing small producers. The Committee concluded that the most effective option was to revise the procedure for issuing additional allotment base in order to improve the economic viability of new and existing producers whose allotment bases are below the MEE threshold.

The Committee also considered alternative MEE thresholds before deciding on the levels that were most representative of the production economics for each class of spearmint oil. The Committee believes the size of the MEE determined for the production of each class of spearmint oil is accurate and appropriate given the information available.

In addition, the Committee considered the length of time that new and existing producers should be expected to hold onto additional allotment base issued under the revised procedure before such allotment base is able to be transferred to another producer. The Committee considered other retention periods other than the five year period recommended, including maintaining the two year retention period. However, it concluded that a five year retention requirement prior to transfer of additional allotment base issued under the revised procedure was a sufficient period for new and existing producers to demonstrate viability in spearmint oil production and should not present an undue hardship on the producers being issued the additional allotment base.

In its deliberations, the Committee considered all available information, including its determination of the size of the MEE required for spearmint oil production, historical statistics relating to the locations of the producers applying for the annual additional allotment base, and other factors such as the number of producers in the regulated production area and the amount of allotment base held by such producers. Based on those determinations, the full eight-member Committee unanimously recommended revising the procedure for issuing additional allotment base to new and existing spearmint oil producers for each class of oil.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements is currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0178, Generic Vegetable and Specialty Crops. Upon publication of this final rule, a Justification of Change will be submitted to make minor modifications and updates to the appearance of two forms and adjust the burden, accordingly.

This final rule revises the procedure currently prescribed for issuing additional allotment base for Class 1 (Scotch) and Class 3 (Native) spearmint oil to new and existing producers under the Far West spearmint oil marketing order. Accordingly, this action will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large spearmint oil producers or handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

As noted in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, USDA has not identified any relevant federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this final rule.

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

In addition, the Committee meetings were widely publicized throughout the spearmint oil industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meetings and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the March 6, 2013, and the November 6, 2013, meetings were public meetings and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue.

A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the Federal Register on May 6, 2014 (79 FR 25710). A copy of the rule was provided to Committee staff, which in turn made it available to all Far West spearmint oil producers, handlers, and interested persons. Finally, the rule was made available through the internet by USDA and the Office of the Federal Register. A 15-day comment period ending May 21, 2014, was provided to allow interested persons to respond to the proposal. No comments were received.

A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide . Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Jeffrey Smutny at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION section of this document.

After consideration of all relevant matter presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

It is further found that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register (5 U.S.C. 553) because applications for additional allotment base are made available in June and the drawing for new spearmint oil producers is held in August. In addition, existing producers need to be notified of the revision to the issuance of additional allotment base so they may plan their plantings accordingly. Further, producers are aware of this rule, which was recommended at a public meeting. Also, a 15-day comment period was provided for in the proposed rule and no comments were received.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR Part 985 is amended as follows:

On January 3, 2014, DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy published a test procedure final rule in the Federal Register titled, “Test Procedures for Residential Furnace Fans” (hereafter referred to as the “January 2014 final rule”). 79 FR 500. Since the publication of that final rule, it has come to DOE's attention that, due to a technical oversight, the January 2014 final rule incorrectly deleted the incorporation by reference of ASHRAE 103-1993 within 10 CFR 430.3. The January 2014 final rule removed the existing reference to ASHRAE 103-1993 and inserted a reference to ASHRAE 103-2007; however, DOE intended to maintain the existing reference to ASHRAE 103-1993 (applicable to residential furnaces and boiler) while adding the incorporation by reference to ASHRAE 103-2007 (applicable to residential furnace fans). This final rule corrects this error by once again adding ASHRAE 103-1993 to the list of materials incorporated by reference at 10 CFR 430.3. This final rule also renumbers section 430.3 to account for the additional reference.

As published, the identified provisions in 10 CFR 430.3 (which only reference ASHRAE 103-2007 and do not reference ASHRAE 103-1993) will likely cause confusion and may mislead interested parties regarding how to properly conduct testing under DOE's residential furnaces and boilers test procedure. The January 2014 final rule for furnace fans removed the incorporation by reference of ASHRAE 103-1993. However, the incorporation by reference of ASHRAE 103-1993 into the CFR remains required because that standard is referenced by Appendix N to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430, “Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Furnaces and Boilers.” It was clearly not DOE's intention to change or eliminate reference materials for other products as part of the furnace fans rulemaking. At no place in the January 2014 final rule did DOE discuss such modifications. This final rule would simply incorporate once again into the CFR the intended and proper reference materials that were erroneously deleted without making substantive changes to any previously established provisions. Accordingly, DOE finds that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to not issue a separate notice to solicit public comment on the changes contained in this document. Issuing a separate document to solicit public comment would be impractical, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest.

DOE has concluded that the determinations made pursuant to the various procedural requirements applicable to the January 3, 2014 test procedure final rule for residential furnace fans remain unchanged for this final rule technical correction. These determinations are set forth in the January 3, 2014 final rule. 79 FR 500, 517-520.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends part 430 of Chapter II, subchapter D of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

The Department is issuing a final rule to amend the requirement for air carriers to report incidents involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal during air transport. The Department is taking action to provide consumers with a fuller picture of the safety record of airlines in the transportation of animals and to clarify which entities are subject to the reporting requirement (i.e., any U.S. air carriers that provide scheduled passenger air transportation or only reporting carriers), as well as which flights are covered (i.e., only domestic scheduled passenger flights or all scheduled passenger flights, including international flights). The legal authority for the Department's regulatory action is 49 U.S.C. 41721.

The final rule: (1) Expands the reporting requirement to U.S. carriers that operate scheduled service with at least one aircraft with a design capacity of more than 60 seats (“covered carriers”); (2) expands the definition of “animal” to any warm- or cold-blooded animal which, at the time of transportation, is being kept as a pet in a family household in the United States and any dog or cat which, at the time of transportation, is shipped as part of a commercial shipment on a scheduled passenger flight, including shipments by trainers and breeders; (3) requires covered carriers to file a calendar-year report for December, even if the carrier did not have any reportable incidents during the calendar year; (4) requires covered carriers to provide in their December reports the total number of animals that were lost, injured, or died during air transport in the calendar year; (5) requires covered carriers to provide in their December reports the total number of animals transported in the calendar year; and (6) requires covered carriers to provide in their December reports a certification signed by an authorized carrier representative affirming that the report is true, correct, and complete.

The quantifiable costs of this rulemaking exceed the quantifiable benefits. The present value of monetized net benefits for a 20-year analysis period is estimated to be −$729,166 at a 7% discount rate. However, when unquantified costs and benefits are taken into account, we anticipate that the benefits of this final rule will justify the costs. Unquantifiable benefits of the final rule include providing consumers with a fuller picture of the safety record of airlines in the transportation of animals and producing opportunities for more comprehensive enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), 7 U.S.C. 54, since the Department shares the reports involving animal incidents with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the government entity that enforces the AWA.

The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century or “AIR-21” (Pub. L. 106-181), which was signed into law on April 5, 2000, includes section 710, “Reports by Carriers on Incidents Involving Animals During Air Transport.” This provision was codified as 49 U.S.C. 41721. Section 41721 states than an air carrier that provides scheduled passenger air transportation shall submit monthly to the Secretary a report on any incidents involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal (as defined by the Secretary of Transportation) during air transport provided by the air carrier and that the Secretary of transportation shall publish data on incidents and complaints involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal during air transport in a manner comparable to other consumer complaint and incident data.

On August 11, 2003, DOT, through its Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), issued a final rule implementing section 710 of AIR-21. See 68 FR 47798. The rule required air carriers that provide scheduled passenger air transportation to submit a report to APHIS on any incident involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal during air transportation provided by the air carrier. Under the rule, the reports would then be shared with DOT, which would publish the data, as required by AIR-21, in a format similar to the manner in which it publishes data on consumer complaints and other incidents. However, issues arose regarding whether APHIS had the capability to accept such information directly from the carriers and pass it on to DOT. In order to resolve such issues, on February 14, 2005, DOT made a technical change in the rule to require reporting airlines to submit the required information directly to DOT's Aviation Consumer Protection Division (ACPD) rather than APHIS and to make the rule part of DOT's economic regulations. See 70 FR 7392. The rule was codified at 14 CFR 234.13.

Section 234.13 required air carriers that provide scheduled passenger air transportation to submit a report to the ACPD on any incidents involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal during air transportation within 15 days after the end of the month during which the incident occurred. It defined “animal” as any warm- or cold-blooded animal which, at the time of transportation, is being kept as a pet in a family household in the United States. The air transport of an animal covered the entire period during which an animal is in the custody of an air carrier, from check-in or delivery of the animal to the carrier prior to departure until the animal is returned to the owner or guardian of the animal at the final destination of the animal. 1 Section 234.13 also listed the information that is to be included in each report (e.g., carrier and flight number, date and time of the incident). However, because § 234.13 is contained in part 234 of Title 14 and that part applies only to the domestic scheduled passenger flights of carriers that account for at least 1 percent of domestic scheduled passenger revenue (“reporting carriers”), there was confusion regarding which entities are required to submit a report to the ACPD on incidents involving loss, injury, or death of an animal during air transportation as well as which flights are covered (i.e., only domestic scheduled passenger flights or all scheduled passenger flights, including international flights).

In August 2010, the Department received a petition for rulemaking on this matter from the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), an advocacy group which works to protect the lives and advance the interest of animals through the legal system. In its petition, ALDF requests that the Department's regulation requiring the reporting of loss, injury, or death of animals in air transport be revised to require airlines to report any such incident involving any animal they carry. It contends that the data that are currently collected by the Department capture only incidents affecting pets, even though pets make up only part of the total number of animals transported by airlines. The ALDF proposed that the rules should apply to all species of animals, not just cats and dogs. At about the same time, Senators Richard Durbin, Robert Menendez, and Joseph Lieberman wrote to the Secretary of Transportation urging the Department to amend the rule so that airlines would be required to report all incidents involving the loss, injury, or death of cats and dogs that occur while they are traveling in an airline's care, custody, or control, regardless of whether the cat or dog is being kept as a pet in a family household in the United States or is part of a commercial shipment.

On June 29, 2012, the Department published in the Federal Register a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) entitled “Reports by Air Carriers on Incidents Involving Animals During Air Transport.” See 77 FR 38747. The Department announced in the NPRM that it was proposing to amend the rule regarding the reporting of incidents involving animals during air transport. The Department sought comment on whether it should: (1) Expand the reporting requirement to U.S. carriers that operate scheduled service with at least one aircraft with a design capacity of more than 60 seats; (2) expand the definition of “animal” to include all cats and dogs transported by the carrier, regardless of whether the cat or dog is transported as a pet by its owner or as part of a commercial shipment (e.g., shipped by a breeder); (3) require covered carriers to provide in their December reports the total number of animals that were lost, injured, or died during air transport that year; and (4) require covered carriers to report the total number of animals transported in the calendar year in the December reports. We also solicited comments on whether covered carriers should be required to file negative reports if the carrier did not have any incidents involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal during a particular month or year—i.e., reporting “0” for any reporting category where there were no such incidents.

The Department received 5,414 comments in response to the NPRM. Of these, two comments were from airlines, representing the views of Delta Air Lines (Delta) and Spirit Airlines (Spirit). Two airline associations, Airlines for America (A4A) and the Air Carrier Association of America (ACAA), submitted a joint comment. Six animal rights organizations each submitted a comment: the ALDF, the American Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS), the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI), the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and Where is Jack? Inc. We also received comments from two scientific research organizations: The Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) and the National Association for Biomedical Research (NABR). Finally, 5,403 individual consumers submitted comments. The Department has carefully reviewed and considered the comments received. The commenters' positions that are germane to the specific issues raised in the NPRM are set forth below, as are the Department's responses.

The regulatory analysis summarized in the table below shows that the estimated monetized costs of the reporting requirement exceed the estimated monetized benefits at a 7% discount rate. The present value of monetized net benefits for a 20-year analysis period is estimated to be −$729,166 at a 7% discount rate. Additional benefits were also identified for which quantitative estimates could not be developed. The Department believes that the non-quantifiable benefits of the reporting requirement justify the costs and cause the total benefits of the rule to exceed its total costs. Non-quantifiable benefits include providing consumers with a fuller picture of the safety record of airlines in the transportation of animals and producing opportunities for more comprehensive enforcement of the AWA, 7 U.S.C. 54, since the Department shares the reports involving animal incidents with APHIS, the government entity that enforces the AWA. A more detailed discussion of the monetized benefits and costs of the final rule is provided in the Regulatory Analysis and Notices section below.

Question posed in the NPRM: The NPRM proposed to require all U.S. carriers that operate scheduled service with at least one aircraft with a design capacity of more than 60 seats to submit a report to the ACPD on any incidents involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal during air transport within 15 days after the end of the month during which the incident occurred. The then-existing reporting requirement only applied to the domestic scheduled passenger flights of carriers that account for at least 1 percent of domestic scheduled passenger revenue. We also invited comments on whether there is any benefit to expanding the applicability of the rule any further to encompass more U.S. carriers and whether the reporting requirements should apply to indirect cargo air carriers operating under the provisions of 14 CFR part 296.

Comments: Most of the comments the Department received do not address whether the rule should be applicable to all U.S. carriers that operate scheduled service with at least one aircraft with a design capacity of more than 60 seats.

A number of animal rights advocacy groups, such as ASPCA, AWI, and AAVS, expressed support for expanding the applicability of the rule further to encompass more carriers. AWI states that there has been confusion over the airlines and flights covered under the law, and this change would clarify the coverage and provide the public with more information. AAVS states the change would be an important step to ensure an accurate picture of how animals are protected while in air transport. AAVS is also in favor of covering indirect cargo air carriers that cater only to pets.

A4A generally objects to the proposals in the NPRM and states that there would be no benefit to expanding the applicability of the rule to encompass more U.S. carriers. A4A also states that indirect cargo air carriers operating under the provisions of 14 CFR part 296 should not be covered. Spirit, the only carrier to comment on this issue, does not object to expanding the reporting requirement to include passenger carriers operating at least one aircraft with more than 60 seats.

DOT response: We carefully considered all of the comments filed on the various issues in this rulemaking. On the issue of which entities should be covered we have decided to require all U.S. carriers that operate scheduled service with at least one aircraft with a design capacity of more than 60 seats to submit a report to the ACPD on any incidents involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal during air transportation within 15 days after the end of the month during which the incident occurred.

As discussed above, the 49 U.S.C. 41721 states, “An air carrier that provides scheduled passenger air transportation shall submit monthly to the Secretary a report on any incidents involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal (as defined by the Secretary of Transportation) during air transport provided by the air carrier.” 49 U.S.C. 40102 defines “air carrier” as “a citizen of the United States undertaking by any means, directly or indirectly, to provide air transportation.” Section 41721 does not contain any language that would limit the applicability of the reporting obligation to only large carriers or “reporting carriers” (i.e., U.S. carriers that account for at least 1 percent of domestic scheduled passenger revenue). For these reasons, we believe that expanding the applicability of the reporting requirement to all U.S. carriers that operate scheduled service with at least one aircraft with a design capacity of more than 60 seats is more consistent with the language of section 41721.

Contrary to A4A's assertions, we believe that expanding the applicability of the requirement from just the “reporting carriers” (i.e., U.S. carriers that account for at least 1 percent of domestic scheduled passenger revenue) to all carriers that operate scheduled service with at least one aircraft with a design capacity of more than 60 seats will provide consumers and other interested parties a more complete picture of the treatment of animals on scheduled passenger flights. However, we agree with A4A in regards to excluding indirect cargo air carriers from the reporting requirement. Pursuant to 14 CFR part 296, an indirect cargo air carrier is any U.S. citizen who undertakes to engage indirectly in air transportation of property, and uses for the whole or any part of such transportation the services of air carrier or a foreign air carrier that has received DOT authorization. We have concluded that requiring indirect cargo air carriers to report incidents involving animals would exceed the scope of 49 U.S.C. 41721, which, as discussed above, states: “An air carrier that provides scheduled passenger air transportation shall submit monthly to the Secretary a report on any incidents involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal (as defined by the Secretary of Transportation) during air transport provided by the air carrier.” Therefore, we will not require such entities to submit a report on any incidents involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal during air transportation.

Question posed in the NPRM: The NPRM proposed to continue to define “animal” as any warm- or cold-blooded animal which, at the time of transportation, is being kept as a pet in a family household in the United States (i.e., the definition in effect up to this time), but also expand the definition to include any dog or cat which, at the time of transportation, is shipped as part of a commercial shipment on a scheduled passenger flight. We also invited comments on whether the definition of “animal” should be expanded further to include not only dogs and cats in commercial shipments but all species of animals in commercial air transportation.

Comments: This proposal is the most contentious topic of the NPRM. All the animal rights advocacy groups believe that “animal” should include all species of animals in commercial air transportation, not just cats and dogs. The animal rights advocacy groups state that cats, dogs, and household pets make up only a portion of all the animals that are transported by carriers. They assert that carriers transport a wide variety of animal species, such as primates, rabbits, ferrets, mice, and rats, for research facilities, zoos, and pet retailers. These groups argue that carriers should be required to report incidents involving all types of animal, not just cats, dogs, and household pets, in order to provide complete and reliable data that will allow consumers, carriers, and legislators to make informed decisions regarding the safety of the transport of all animals.

Most individual comments also urge the Department to include all species of animals in commercial air transportation, not just cats and dogs, in the definition of “animal.” (The vast majority of these individual comments appear to be form letters from members of the animal rights advocacy groups.)

Senators Richard Durbin, Robert Menendez, and Joseph Lieberman filed a comment in response to the NPRM reiterating the support expressed in their 2010 letter for expanding the definition of “animal” to include all cats and dogs that are in an airline's care, custody, or control, regardless of whether the cat or dog is being transported as a pet by its owner or as part of a commercial shipment.

The scientific research organizations adamantly oppose expanding the definition of “animal.” AZA argues that it strongly believes the Congressional intent of the underlying authorizing legislation is to focus on the loss, injury, or death of family pets through air transportation. AZA states that if the definition of “animal” is expanded to include all species, the resource and logistical burden placed upon the airlines could effectively force airlines to completely discontinue the transport of all animals, creating catastrophic consequences for the AZA zoo and aquarium community and the sustainability of the animal collections in their care.

NABR urges that any changes to the existing definition of “animal” recognize that the term should not apply to dogs and cats bred for use in research. NABR states that the Department assumes that dogs and cats that are transported as part of a commercial shipment are likely being transported for the purpose of being sold as a pet in a family household and that this assumption is flawed as dogs and cats being transported to research facilities in the United States are not intended to be sold as pets. NABR states that commercial dealers that breed dogs, cats, and other species needed for research purposes must be licensed by the USDA and are subject to the standards and regulations mandated by the AWA. NABR states that these commercial dealers are inspected by APHIS and reports of the inspections are already available to the public on the USDA Web site. NABR also states that it opposes expanding the definition of “animal” to include all species of animals because such an expansion would conflict with the legislative history of AIR-21, which does not show an intent to require this type of reporting.

A4A also opposes expanding the definition of “animal” on the basis that doing so would conflict with Congressional intent. A4A argues that the original regulations published in 2003 specifically analyzed Congress' intent when it used the term “animal,” and that the Department's research into the statute's legislative history found that when Congress used the term animal, it meant pets. A4A asserts further that passengers care most about pet incidents and do not want nor are interested in expanding the definition of “animal.” A4A states that passengers are satisfied with the current reporting program and that complaints about animal policies regularly ranks last in the 12 categories of complaints that the Department lists every month in its consumer report. A4A argues that this indicates that passengers are satisfied with the balance the current regulation strikes (i.e., full disclosure of pet incidents without including information on commercial animal shipments that A4A says passengers do not care about).

DOT response: We have decided to define “animal” as any warm- or cold-blooded animal which, at the time of transportation, is being kept as a pet in a family household in the United States and any dog or cat which, at the time of transportation, is shipped as part of a commercial shipment on a scheduled passenger flight. We are not expanding the definition of “animal” to cover all species of animals. We believe it would be unduly burdensome to require covered carriers to report the death, loss, or injury of all species of animals because there potentially could be thousands of individual animals such as fish, rodents, and insects that are transported by air carriers in a single commercial shipment.

As explained below, we do not agree with A4A's arguments. We believe that expanding the definition of “animal” to include any dog or cat which, at the time of transportation, is shipped as part of a commercial shipment will provide consumers with a fuller picture of the safety record of airlines in the transportation of animals. Many dogs and cats that are being shipped on scheduled passenger flights other than as pets by their owners are likely being transported for the purpose of being sold as a pet in a family household in the United States. Moreover, even though the old definition of “animal” only included any warm- or cold-blooded animal which, at the time of transportation, is being kept as a pet in a family household, virtually all of the reports of deaths, injuries, and loss involved cats and dogs. Specifically, cats and dogs accounted for 95% of deaths, 100% of the injuries, and 98% of the losses. Based on these considerations, we believe that expanding the definition of “animal” to include all cats and dogs will provide consumers with more complete data that will allow them to make more informed decision.

Question posed in the NPRM: The NPRM proposed to require each covered carrier to provide in its December report a summary of the total number of animal losses, injuries, and deaths for the calendar year. The then-existing requirement did not require covered carriers to provide any summary of the total number of animal losses, injuries, and deaths for the calendar year.

Comments: Most of the comments the Department received did not address whether carriers should be required to provide in their December report a summary of the total number of animal losses, injuries, and deaths.

Only one of the animal rights advocacy groups specifically addresses this proposal. AWI states that the public will benefit from having the airlines' December reports include the total number of animals lost, injured, or killed.

NABR, the only scientific research organization to address this issue, opposes any additional monthly or annual incident reports. NABR asserts that additional monthly or annual incident reports are unnecessary for laboratory animal breeders to evaluate carriers, comply with current AWA requirements, and carry out their responsibilities to animals and customers.

A4A also opposes requiring carriers to provide in its December report a summary of the total number of animal losses, injuries, and deaths. A4A states that this proposal provides no benefit beyond the current requirements. A4A asserts that current animal incident reporting practices already provide passengers with very detailed information providing transparency on pet incidents, which was the intent of the Act and is what passengers care about most.

DOT response: We have decided to require covered carriers to provide in their December report a summary of the total number of animal losses, injuries, and deaths for the year. We do not believe it to be burdensome for the covered carriers to submit this data. To comply with this requirement, a covered carrier must simply add up the number of animal incidents in each category that it reported in the previous months. This complements the requirement to report the total number of animals transported (see below). We have included in the final rule a standardized table that covered carriers must use in the December reports when reporting the total number of animal losses, injuries, and deaths in the calendar year.

Question posed in the NPRM: We invited comments on whether carriers should be required to report the total number of animals transported during that year. The then-existing rule did not require covered carriers to report the total number of animals transported during that year. We also asked whether covered carriers should be required to report only once per year (in the December reports) on the total number of animals transported during that year, or whether the total number of animals transported should be reported each month.

Comments: A number of animal rights advocacy groups and U.S. carriers support requiring covered carriers to report the total number of animals transported during that year. These commenters agree that providing the total number of animal transported will allow consumers to calculate rates of animal loss, injury, and death per unit of animals transported for each airline (e.g., 1.04 deaths per 10,000 animals transported) and that would help consumers and other interested parties to compare the rate of animal incidents from one carrier to another or one year to another. AWI states that the public will benefit from having the airlines' December reports include the total number of animals transported during the year. AAVS asserts that this information would give consumers information that can be used to correctly compare air carriers and their records. AAVS also states that information should be provided monthly as well as in December to provide an accurate and up to date understanding of air carriers' record with regards to animal transport.

ALDF states that requiring carriers to report on the total number of animals transported will provide the context necessary to understand the incident reports. ALDF argues that, among other benefits, determining the number of incidents per unit of animals transported will allow covered carriers to determine whether their practices are reducing the rate of incidents, help consumers make more informed decisions on which carrier to entrust their animals to, and provide legislators critical information with which to determine if there is a problem that warrants stronger legislative remedies. ALDF adds that the carriers should provide this data monthly.

Spirit states that it does not object to the proposal to require airlines to report the total number of animals transported annually. Spirit believes that this information would allow consumers to compare the total number of animals transported against the number of incidents involving animals in air transport, further highlighting the infrequency of these incidents. Spirit adds that the Department should not require monthly reporting of the total number of animals transported. Spirit argues that incidents involving animals in air transport are random and extremely infrequent, and the number of incidents per unit of animals transported in any given month has little if any value because the rate of incidents is so low.

Delta states that it supports requiring carriers to report the total number of animals transported during the year, but with two qualifications: (1) The existing definition of “animal” should remain unchanged (i.e., any warm- or cold-blooded animal which, at the time of transportation, is being kept as a pet in a family household in the United States); and (2) the rate calculated by the Department should not be the number of animal incidents “per unit of animals transported,” but rather, the number of incidents per passenger enplanement. Delta's argument regarding the definition of “animal” is discussed above. With respect to the rate calculated, Delta argues that the process proposed by the Department would lead to the gathering of data that can be easily skewed by small sample sizes. Delta asserts that calculating the number of incidents per unit of passenger enplanements takes all relevant data into account and conveys an incident rate in the full context of each carrier's operation. Delta believes that this approach would be consistent with other data reported by carriers to the Department, e.g., oversales, mishandled baggage, consumer complaints, all of which are calculated per passenger enplanement. Delta states that since carriers already report these other issues per enplanement, the data are readily available and would not require any new data-gathering processes.

A4A, on the other hand, opposes requiring covered carriers to include in the December report the total number of animals transported in the calendar year. A4A argues that the monthly consumer report provides very detailed information on every animal incident to consumers and that providing general statistics that include commercial animal shipments is not relevant to what passengers care about most—transporting pets in the baggage compartment on a flight. A4A asserts that carriers would need to reconfigure their systems because current procedures for tracking animal incidents are inadequate for tracking the total number of animals transported. A4A argues further that the Department vastly underestimates the cost of this proposal.

DOT response: We have decided to require covered carriers to include in the December reports the total number of animals transported in the calendar year. We believe the requirement to report the total number of animals transported is important for providing consumers a complete picture of a covered carrier's animal transport record, as the number of animals transported by each airline may vary widely. Consumers can use this data to calculate rates of animal loss, injury, and death per unit of animals transported for each airline (e.g., 1.04 deaths per 10,000 animals transported). While we recognize changes may be needed, we do not agree with A4A's assertion that current procedures for tracking animal incidents are inadequate for tracking the total number of animals transported. One of the two air carriers that submitted comments in response to the NPRM, Spirit, does not believe it is burdensome to report the total number of animals transported in the calendar year. Additionally, for many years the former Continental Airlines voluntarily included this information in the animal incident reports that it filed with the Department.

Question posed in the NPRM: We solicited comments on whether carriers should be required to file negative reports if the carrier did not have any incidents involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal during a particular month or year—i.e., reporting “0” for any reporting category where there were no such incidents. The then-existing rule did not require covered carriers to file negative reports.

Comments: Most of the comments the Department received did not address whether carriers should be required to provide negative reports if the carrier did not have any incidents involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal during a particular month or year.

A couple of animal rights advocacy groups expressed support for negative reporting by carriers. Specifically, AWI states that it endorses the proposal to have airlines file reports in December even if they have had no animal-related incidents at any time during the year. AWI agrees with the Department's reasoning that “[r]equiring negative reporting in the recap in the December report over a signature and certification of an official of the airline provides an additional incentive for complete and accurate reporting by carriers.” ALDF asserts that negative reporting would improve reporting accuracy and reinforce the importance of these requirements. ALDF argues that the negative reports should be provided monthly because it would further the goals of accuracy and clarity in the reporting process and help to keep the safety of animals as an important issue for carriers every month, rather than simply at the end of the year during a busy reporting and travel season.

A4A and Spirit oppose the negative reporting requirement. A4A argues that a requirement to file a “negative” report when there are no animal incidents to report will provide no benefit to the public and will incur unnecessary cost to carriers. Spirit asserts that completing, filing, and processing negative reports will create an unnecessary burden on the carrier and the Department because the reports will not provide the Department with any information that it did not already know. Spirit further states that monthly negative reporting would impose an undue burden on all air carriers covered by the rule.

DOT response: We have decided to require covered carriers to file negative reports in their December reports if the carrier did not have any incidents involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal during the calendar year. Thus, each covered carrier would be required to file a report for the previous calendar year by January 15 even if the carrier did not experience any incidents involving animals and/or carried no animals during that year. We do not believe it to be unduly burdensome for covered carriers that did not have any incidents involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal to enter “0” into the appropriate categories and submit their December report. In addition, we believe that requiring covered carriers to affirmatively certify that there were no reportable animal incidents during the calendar year provides an additional incentive to ensure that the reports are complete and accurate. Covered carriers will not be required to file negative reports in any other monthly report (i.e., January through November).

This action has been determined not to be significant under Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. As a result, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) and is consistent with the requirements in both orders. Executive Order 13563 refers to non-quantifiable values, including equity and fairness. A summary of the costs and benefits of this final rule follows. For more details, please refer to a copy of the final regulatory evaluation, which has been placed in the docket.

The cost of filing monthly reports is minimal. Aside from the December report, a carrier is required to report only during the months where the carrier experiences a reportable animal incident. Currently, 15 of the 27 carriers that are affected are already required to collect information on incidents involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal. For these 15 carriers, which account for approximately 90 percent of the domestic market, there are no additional costs. For the 12 other carriers that do not currently have to report, the cost varies depending on whether or not there is a reportable incident during any given month. For example, if a carrier experiences no reportable incidents all year, then the recurrent cost of filing monthly reports for January to November is $0. However, if the carrier experiences a reportable incident every month of the year, the cost would be $466.32 per year. This is based on our estimate that it would take a paralegal working in scheduled air transportation making $38.86 per hour (the average wage rate including benefits) one hour to prepare and submit one monthly report. So, if all 12 carriers that do not currently have to report were to each experience a reportable incident every month of the year, the total cost would be $5,595.84. Therefore, the cost of monthly reports will be between $0 and $5,595.84 per year depending on the number of reportable incidents. Even the high estimate would still be a minimal cost.

Covered carriers are required to submit a December report. In addition to including information on any incidents involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal during air transport that occurred in the month of December, the December report must include the total number of animals that were lost, injured, or died during air transport in the calendar year and the total number of animals that were transported in the calendar year.

The burden on covered carriers to submit in their December report the total number of animals that were lost, injured, or died during air transport in the calendar year is minimal. The cost varies depending on whether or not a carrier experienced any reportable incidents during the calendar year. For example, if a carrier experiences no reportable incidents all year, then the cost is $38.86, the estimated cost of a paralegal working in scheduled air transportation to prepare and submit one report. If a carrier had one or more animal incidents in a year, it will be required add up all the values in any report that it filed throughout the year. We estimate that it will take a paralegal working in scheduled air transportation 0.5 hour to find the sum of all the values the carrier filed throughout the year. If all 27 covered carriers each experienced a reportable incident in the calendar year, the total cost will be $1,573.83 ($524.61 for the carriers to add together all the reportable incidents in the calendar year and $1,049.22 for the carriers to prepare and submit one report). Therefore, the cost of the December reports will be between $38.86 and $1,573.83 per year depending on the number of reportable incidents.

The burden on covered carriers to submit in their December reports the total number of animals that were transported in the calendar year is more substantial because it will require covered carriers that transport covered animals in the baggage/cargo compartment to create and maintain systems that will record and keep track of the number of animals transported throughout the year. At the same time, some carriers, such as Spirit Airlines, do not transport animals. Additionally, some covered carriers may already have a system in place. These carriers will incur no costs. Therefore, we estimate that first year start-up costs for the computer hardware and software would be approximately $270,000 for the entire industry. 2

We estimate that the subsequent yearly costs to maintain the systems will be minimal. If a carrier does not transport animals in the calendar year, such as Spirit Airlines, then there will be no cost. If we assumed that annual maintenance costs averaged $40,000 for the entire industry, the total cost of maintenance over 20 years discounted at 7% would be about $424,000. Factoring in the initial $270,000 start-up cost brings the total cost of the requirement to report in the December reports the total number of animals transported in the calendar year to be about $694,000.

The cost of the proposed expanded definition of an animal would impact airlines, but the cost would still be minimal. Since 2008, the average number of reported incidents per year is 47. If we were to assume that it takes a paralegal one hour to prepare and submit a report per incident, then we have estimated that the cost to the industry is $1,826.42 per year. This is based on our estimate of a paralegal's salary discussed above. Various trade sources indicate that dogs and cats transported as part of a commercial shipment may account for as much as half of all dogs, cats, and other household pets that are transported by covered carriers. If we were to assume that expanding the definition to include dogs and cats transported as part of a commercial shipment would result in an additional 47 reported incidents per year (i.e., a total of 94 incidents), the additional cost of $1,826.42 is still minimal.

The benefits of the rule, while difficult to quantify, exceed the costs. Comprehensive data are not immediately available as to the total number of animals that air carriers currently transport. Neither trade associations for animal transportation providers nor most airlines collect data on the number of animals transported annually by air. Trade association (e.g., pet transportation firms) and industry (airlines) sources estimate the actual number of pets that carriers transport annually at up to 800,000. This rule will provide consumers with a fuller picture of the safety record of airlines in the transportation of animals. If the benefit of expanding reporting requirements to dogs and cats transported as a commercial shipment were as little as a $0.34 per animal shipped, the benefits of the rule would exceed the costs.

This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”). This final rule does not include any provision that (1) has substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government; (2) imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments; or (3) preempts State law. States are already preempted from regulating in this area by the Airline Deregulation Act. See 49 U.S.C. 41713. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires an agency to review regulations to assess their impact on small entities unless the agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. I certify that this final rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A direct air carrier or a foreign air carrier is a small business if it provides air transportation only with small aircraft (i.e., aircraft designed to have a maximum passenger capacity of not more than 60 seats or a maximum payload capacity of not more than 18,000 pounds). See 14 CFR 399.73. This rule does not impose new duties or obligations on small entities. The rule applies only to U.S. carriers that operate scheduled service with at least one aircraft with a design capacity of more than 60 seats. Therefore, this requirement does not affect small entities.

This rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13084 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”). Because this final rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments or impose substantial direct compliance costs on them, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13084 do not apply.

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Department has submitted the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Before OMB decides whether to approve those proposed collections of information that are part of this final rule and issue a control number, the public must be provided 30 days to comment. Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the information collection requirements should direct them to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, and should also send a copy of their comments to: Department of Transportation, Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, Office of the General Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information requirements contained in this rule between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register . Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.

We will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this rule. The Department may not impose a penalty on persons for violating information collection requirements which do not display a current OMB control number, if required. The Department intends to renew the OMB control number for the information collection requirements resulting from this rulemaking action. The OMB control number, when renewed, will be announced by separate notice in the Federal Register .

The ICR was previously published in the Federal Register as part of the NPRM. See 77 FR 38750. The Department invited interested persons to submit comments on any aspect of each of these three information collections, including the following: (1) The necessity and utility of the information collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimate of the burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of collection without reducing the quality of the collected information.

The final rule renews and modifies the information collection titled “Reports by Carriers on Incidents Involving Animals During Air Transport” (OMB No. 2105-0552). The collection of information contained in the final rule is a requirement that U.S. carriers that operate scheduled passenger service with at least one aircraft having a designed seating capacity of more than 60 passenger seats report to the Department's ACPD any incidents involving the loss, injury, or death during air transport of cats and dogs that were part of a commercial shipment. (Cats and dogs that were being kept as a household pet at the time of such a loss, injury, or death are already required to be reported by these airlines.) As discussed above, this requirement expands the reporting requirement from 15 carriers to 27 carriers, an increase of 12 carriers. The collection of information also requires covered carriers to state in their report for the month of December the total number of animals that were lost, injured, or died during air transport in the calendar year and the total number of animals that were transported in the calendar year.

Title: Reports by Carriers on Incidents involving Animals During Air Transport.

OMB Control Number: 2105-0552.

Type of Request: Modification of expired Information Collection Request.

Respondents: U.S. carriers that operate scheduled passenger service with at least one aircraft having a designed seating capacity of more than 60 seats (27).

Frequency: For each respondent, one information set for the month of December, plus one information set during some other months (1 to 12).

Estimated Annual Burden on Respondents: 27 to 324 hours (Respondents [27] × Frequency [1 to 12 per year]).

The Department has analyzed the environmental impacts of this proposed action pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) (NEPA) and has determined that it is categorically excluded pursuant to DOT Order 5610.1C, Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (44 FR 56420, Oct. 1, 1979). Categorical exclusions are actions identified in an agency's NEPA implementing procedures that do not normally have a significant impact on the environment and therefore do not require either an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). See 40 CFR 1508.4. In analyzing the applicability of a categorical exclusion, the agency must also consider whether extraordinary circumstances are present that would warrant the preparation of an EA or EIS. Id. Paragraph 4.c.6.i of DOT Order 5610.1C provides that “actions relating to consumer protection, including regulations” are categorically excluded. The purpose of this rulemaking is to amend the requirement for air carriers to report incidents involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal during air transport. The agency does not anticipate any environmental impacts, and there are no extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.

The Department has determined that the requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply to this notice.

Issued in Washington, DC, on the 24th day of June, 2014, under the authority delegated at 49 CFR 1.27(n).

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Transportation amends 14 CFR Chapter II as follows:

In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)), devices that were not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976 (the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976), generally referred to as postamendments devices, are classified automatically by statute into class III without any FDA rulemaking process. These devices remain in class III and require premarket approval, unless and until the device is classified or reclassified into class I or II, or FDA issues an order finding the device to be substantially equivalent, in accordance with section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. The Agency determines whether new devices are substantially equivalent to predicate devices by means of premarket notification procedures in section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807) of the regulations.

Section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, as amended by section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144), provides two procedures by which a person may request FDA to classify a device under the criteria set forth in section 513(a)(1). Under the first procedure, the person submits a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act for a device that has not previously been classified and, within 30 days of receiving an order classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2). Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a premarket notification under section 510(k) and then a request for classification under the first procedure, the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence and requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. If the person submits a request to classify the device under this second procedure, FDA may decline to undertake the classification request if FDA identifies a legally marketed device that could provide a reasonable basis for review of substantial equivalence with the device or if FDA determines that the device submitted is not of “low-moderate risk” or that general controls would be inadequate to control the risks and special controls to mitigate the risks cannot be developed.

In response to a request to classify a device under either procedure provided by section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA will classify the device by written order within 120 days. This classification will be the initial classification of the device.

In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, FDA issued an order on November 20, 2012, classifying the Cefaly Device, into class III, because it was not substantially equivalent to a device that was introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce for commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or a device which was subsequently reclassified into class I or class II. On December 13, 2012, STX-Med SPRL, submitted a request for classification of the Cefaly Device under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. The manufacturer recommended that the device be classified into class II (Ref. 1).

In accordance with section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. FDA classifies devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use. After review of the information submitted in the de novo request, FDA determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA believes these special controls, in addition to general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.

Therefore, on March 11, 2014, FDA issued an order to the requester classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 882.5891.

Following the effective date of this final classification administrative order, any firm submitting a premarket notification (510(k)) for a transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulator to treat headache will need to comply with the special controls named in the final administrative order.

The device is assigned the generic name transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulator to treat headache, and it is identified as a device used to apply an electrical current to a patient's cranium through electrodes placed on the skin.

FDA has identified the following risks to health associated with this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks in table 1:

FDA believes that the following special controls, in addition to the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness:

• The patient-contacting components of the device must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.

• Appropriate analysis/testing must validate electromagnetic compatibility and electrical, mechanical, and thermal safety.

• The technical parameters of the device, including waveform, output modes, maximum output voltage and current (with 500, 2,000, and 10,000 ohm loads), pulse duration, frequency, net charge (μC) per pulse, maximum phase charge at 500 ohms, maximum current density (mA/cm 2 , r.m.s.), maximum average current (mA), maximum average power density (W/cm 2 ), and the type of impedance monitoring system must be fully characterized.

• Electrical performance, adhesive integrity, shelf life, reusability, and current distribution testing of the electrodes must be conducted.

• Appropriate software verification, validation, and hazard analysis must be performed.

• Clinical performance data must demonstrate that the device is safe and effective as a treatment for headache in the indicated patient population.

• Labeling must include the following:

○ Appropriate contraindications such as not for use in subjects with an implanted metallic or electronic device in the head, a cardiac pacemaker, or an implanted or wearable defibrillator;

○ appropriate warnings such as not to apply the device on the neck or chest, not to use the device in the presence of electronic monitoring equipment, not to use in the bath or shower, not to use while sleeping, not to use while driving, not to use while operating machinery;

○ appropriate precautions such as the long-term effects of chronic use of the device are unknown;

○ a summary of the expected risks and benefits of using the device;

○ a summary of the clinical performance data, including information on the patient population for which the device has and has not been demonstrated to be effective, and any adverse events and complications;

○ information on how the device operates and the typical sensations experienced during treatment;

○ a detailed summary of the device technical parameters;

○ an expiration date/shelf life for the electrodes and the number of times they can be reused; and

○ disposal instructions.

Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act provides that FDA may exempt a class II device from the premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act if FDA determines that premarket notification is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. For this type of device, FDA has determined that premarket notification is necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. Therefore, this device type is not exempt from premarket notification requirements. Persons who intend to market this type of device must submit to FDA a premarket notification prior to marketing the device, which contains information about the transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulator to treat headache device they intend to market.

The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

This final administrative order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120, and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801, regarding labeling, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.

The following reference has been placed on display in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and may be seen by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and is available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov .

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 882 is amended as follows:

I. Background

In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)), devices that were not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976 (the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976), generally referred to as postamendments devices, are classified automatically by statute into class III without any FDA rulemaking process. These devices remain in class III and require premarket approval, unless and until the device is classified or reclassified into class I or II, or FDA issues an order finding the device to be substantially equivalent, in accordance with section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. The Agency determines whether new devices are substantially equivalent to predicate devices by means of premarket notification procedures in section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and 21 CFR part 807 of the regulations.

Section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, as amended by section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144), provides two procedures by which a person may request FDA to classify a device under the criteria set forth in section 513(a)(1). Under the first procedure, the person submits a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act for a device that has not previously been classified and, within 30 days of receiving an order classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2). Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a premarket notification under section 510(k) and then a request for classification under the first procedure, the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence and requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. If the person submits a request to classify the device under this second procedure, FDA may decline to undertake the classification request if FDA identifies a legally marketed device that could provide a reasonable basis for review of substantial equivalence with the device or if FDA determines that the device submitted is not of “low-moderate risk” or that general controls would be inadequate to control the risks and special controls to mitigate the risks cannot be developed.

In response to a request to classify a device under either procedure provided by section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA will classify the device by written order within 120 days. This classification will be the initial classification of the device. In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, FDA issued an order on January 7, 2011, classifying the Restless Legs Device, into class III, because it was not substantially equivalent to a device that was introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce for commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or a device which was subsequently reclassified into class I or class II. On January 23, 2011, Mary M. Sorg dba PJ Sleeper's, submitted a request for classification of the Restless Leg Device under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. The manufacturer recommended that the device be classified into class I (Ref. 1).

In accordance with section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. FDA classifies devices into class I if general controls by themselves are sufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use. After review of the information submitted in the de novo request, FDA determined that the device can be classified into class I. FDA believes general controls will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.

Therefore, on December 18, 2013, FDA issued an order to the requester classifying the device into class I. FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding § 890.5760. The device is assigned the generic name nonpowered lower extremity pressure wrap, and it is identified as a prescription device that applies mechanical pressure by wrapping around the lower extremity, such as the leg or foot, and is intended for primary Restless Leg Syndrome.

FDA believes that general controls provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. Nonpowered lower extremity pressure wraps are prescription devices restricted to patient use only upon the authorization of a practitioner licensed by law to administer or use the device. ((21 CFR 882.1440(a)); see section 520(e) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360j(e)) and 21 CFR 801.109 ( Prescription devices ).) Prescription-use restrictions are a type of general controls as defined in section 513(a)(1)(A)(i) of the FD&C Act.

The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

This final administrative order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 801, regarding labeling, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.

The following reference has been placed on display in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and may be seen by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and is available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov .

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 890 is amended as follows:

The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulations in 33 CFR 100.1101 in support of San Diego Maritime Museum Tall Ship Festival of Sail (Item 15 on Table 1 of 33 CFR 100.1101), held on a weekend in September. The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulations on the San Diego Bay in San Diego, CA on Friday August 29, 2014 through Monday September 1, 2014 from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m.

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.1101, persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through or anchoring within this regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in the patrol and notification of the regulation.

This document is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 33 CFR 100.1101. In addition to this document in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners and local advertising by the event sponsor.

If the Captain of the Port Sector San Diego or his designated representative determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated on this notice, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners or other communications coordinated with the event sponsor to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

On April 22, 2014, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Safety Zone; Swim Around Charleston, Charleston, SC in the Federal Register . We received no comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

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 ensure the safety of the swimmers, participant vessels, spectators, and the general public during the Swim Around Charleston.

The Coast Guard did not receive any comments to the proposed rule, and no changes were made to the regulatory text.

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 seven hours; (2) the safety zone will move with the participant vessels so that once the swimmers clear a portion of the waterway, the safety zone will no longer be enforced in that portion of the waterway; (3) 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; (4) 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 (5) 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.

(1) This rule would affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the Wando River, the Cooper River, Charleston Harbor, or the Ashley River in Charleston, South Carolina from 11:30 a.m. until 6:30 p.m. on September 21, 2014.

(2) 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), and have 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 involves a special local regulation issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade. 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-2013-0322 at www.regulations.gov. 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.

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

The Coast Guard will enforce the Manistee Independence Day fireworks safety zone listed as item (e)(7) in Table 165.929 of 33 CFR 165.929. Section 165.929 lists many annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone. The Manistee Independence Day fireworks zone will encompass all waters of Lake Michigan, in the vicinity of the First Street Beach, within the arc of a circle with a 1,000-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located in position 44°14′51″ N, 086°20′46″ W (NAD 83). This zone will be enforced from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m. on July 4, 2014.

All vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, or the on-scene representative to enter, move within, or exit the safety zone. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone must obey all lawful orders or directions of the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, or a designated representative. Vessels that wish to transit through the safety zone may request permission from the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan. Requests must be made in advance and approved by the Captain of the Port before transits will be authorized. Approvals will be granted on a case by case basis.

This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.929, Safety Zones; Annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone 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 this event via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners that the regulation is in effect. The Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, or his or her on-scene representative may be contacted via Channel 16, VHF-FM.

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 with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The final details for the three displays within this rule were not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the displays 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 vessels from the hazards associated with three fireworks displays, 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.

The legal basis for this rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish regulated navigation areas and limited access areas under 33 U.S.C. 1231, 33 CFR 1.05-1, and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

On July 5, 2014, between 9:30 p.m. and 10:45 p.m. the Coast Guard anticipates that fireworks will be fired from a barge on Spring Lake in the vicinity of Jerusalem Bayou as part of a private party wedding ceremony near Spring Lake, Michigan. A second fireworks display is anticipated on July 5, 2014. Between 10 p.m. and 11:30 p.m. on that day, the Coast Guard anticipates that fireworks will be fired as part of the “Salute the Troops” Festival on Muskegon Lake in Muskegon, Michigan. Lastly, on August 2, 2014 between 9 p.m. and 11 p.m., the Coast Guard anticipates that a fireworks display will be fired from a barge on the waters of Sturgeon Bay as part of the “Venetian Night” event in Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin. The Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, has determined that these fireworks displays will pose a significant risk to public safety and property. Hazards presented by these displays include falling and/or flaming debris, and collisions among transiting or spectator vessels.

With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, has determined that 3 temporary safety zones are necessary to ensure the safety of persons and vessels during the aforementioned fireworks displays on and around Lake Michigan. As such, the following safety zones will be established for the listed events:

The safety zone will encompass all waters of Spring Lake in Spring Lake, Michigan, in the vicinity of Jerusalem Bayou, within the arc of a circle with a 500-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located on a barge in approximate position 43°06′39″ N, 086°10′56″ W. (NAD 83). This zone will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. until 10:45 p.m. on July 5, 2014.

The safety zone will encompass all waters of Muskegon Lake, in the vicinity of Lafarge Corporation, within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius from a fireworks launch site in approximate position 43°14′00″ N, 086°15′50″ W. (NAD 83). This zone will be enforced from 10 p.m. until 11:30 p.m. on July 5, 2014.

The safety zone will encompass all waters of Sturgeon Bay, in the vicinity of Sturgeon Bay Yacht Harbor, within the arc of a circle with a 800-foot radius from the fireworks launch site located on a barge in approximate position 44°49′41″ N, 087°22′20″ W. (NAD 83). This zone will be enforced from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m. on August 2, 2014.

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within these safety zones is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, or her designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or her 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. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 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 zones created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for only a short time on the indicated day. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zones 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 temporary 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. 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 the affected portion of the waters to which each safety zone applies during the time in which each safety zone is enforced.

These safety zones will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the reasons cited in the Regulatory Planning and Review section. Additionally, before the enforcement of these zones, we would issue local Broadcast Notice to Mariners so vessel owners and operators can plan accordingly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of safety zones 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:

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

Table 1 lists the rule we are approving with the dates that it was adopted by the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

On May 13, 2009, the submittal for PCAPCD Rule 516 was deemed by operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

There are no previous versions of Rule 516 in the SIP.

Historically, the practice of rice growing included burning the field stubble or straw following harvest to kill weeds and insects and prepare the field for next year's plantings. The purpose of Rule 516 is to provide procedures to quantify, certify, and issue emission reduction credits (ERCs) that have resulted from the permanent curtailment of rice straw burning in the PCAPCD. Approval of Rule 516 into the SIP would allow these ERCs to be used as offsets under PCAPCD's New Source Review (NSR) rule. EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information about this rule.

Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act), and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). In addition, a rule of this type that generates emission reduction credits for use as offsets in the NSR program must meet the NSR requirement for valid offsets (see section 173(c)) and should meet the criteria set forth in EPA's guidance concerning economic incentive programs.

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

We believe this rule is consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability and economic incentive programs; and ensures that the emission reductions are real, surplus, quantifiable, enforceable, and permanent. This rule includes detailed emissions quantification protocols and enforceable procedures which provide the necessary assurance that the emission reduction credits issued will meet the criteria for valid NSR offsets. The TSD has more information on our evaluation.

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving the submitted rule because we believe it fulfills all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register , we are simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rule. If we receive adverse comments by August 4, 2014, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective without further notice on September 2, 2014. This will incorporate the rule into the federally enforceable SIP.

Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The subject clause is currently codified in the EPAAR as the April 1984 basic clause without any alternates. The basic clause only contemplates order issuance prior to receiving formal input from the contractor. On December 21, 1989, a class deviation was issued to prescribe an alternate to the clause that provides for negotiating the terms and conditions of a task/delivery order prior to order issuance. There are several benefits to negotiation prior to order issuance: The Government is not charged directly for the time involved in negotiations and the associated costs are part of bid and proposal costs which are indirect charges spread across all Government contracts; it allows for more accurate pricing for the order, and it enables the Government to hold the Contractor to negotiated requirements as soon as the order is issued. As a result, the subject clause and corresponding prescription are being updated to add the 1989 class deviation. Because the class deviation provides several benefits that the basic clause does not, it will be designated as the basic form of the Ordering clause, and the previous basic form is being re-designated as Alternate I. In addition, the EPAAR 1516.505(a) subject clause prescription is being updated accordingly. On April 7, 2014 (79 FR 19039) EPA sought comments on the proposed rule and received no comments.

This final rule updates the EPAAR 1516.505(a) clause prescription, and amends EPAAR 1552.216-72 to add an alternate version to the Ordering—By Designated Ordering Officers clause. It also provides additional information in Section (III)(C) below relating to the Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.

This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order (EO)12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and therefore, not subject to review under the EO.

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. No information is collected under this action.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute; unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impact of today's final rule on small entities, “small entity” is defined as: (1) A small business that meets the definition of a small business found in the Small Business Act and codified at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

After considering the economic impacts of this rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action revises a current EPAAR clause and does not impose requirements involving capital investment, implementing procedures, or record keeping. The previous basic form of the clause (which is now Alternate I) is already codified in the EPAAR, and the form that is being re-designated as the basic form has already been in wide use as an EPA clause deviation since 1989. Depending on procurement specifics, EPA uses the basic form of the clause about twice as often as the alternate form, because the basic form provides several benefits to negotiation prior to order issuance, as discussed in the Background section above. Therefore this rule will not have a significant economic impact on small entities.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, Local, and Tribal governments and the private sector.

This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of the Title II of the UMRA) for State, Local, and Tribal governments or the private sector. The rule imposes no enforceable duty on any State, Local or Tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, the rule is not subject to the requirements of Sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and Local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that 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.”

This rule 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.

Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This rule does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175.

Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12886, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that may have a proportionate effect on children. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant rule as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because it does not involve decisions on environmental health or safety risks.

This final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution of Use” (66 FR 28335 (MAY 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C 272 note) of NTTA, Public Law 104-113, directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

This final rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

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

EPA has determined that this 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. This final rulemaking does not involve human health or environmental effects.

Therefore, 48 CFR Chapter 15 is amended as set forth below:

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (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.

The 2014 total allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific ocean perch in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA is 2,399 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2014 and 2015 harvest specifications for groundfish of the (79 FR 12890, March 6, 2014).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i) and (ii)(B), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the 2014 TAC of Pacific ocean perch in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA will be taken as incidental catch in directed fisheries for other species. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 99 mt, and is setting aside 2,300 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific ocean perch in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA.

After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The 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) 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 closure of directed fishing for Pacific ocean perch in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of June 26, 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.

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

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (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.

The 2014 total allowable catch (TAC) of northern rockfish in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA is 1,305 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2014 and 2015 harvest specifications for groundfish of the (79 FR 12890, March 6, 2014).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the 2014 TAC of northern rockfish in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA will be soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 50 mt, and is setting aside 1,255 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for northern rockfish in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA.

After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The 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) 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 closure of directed fishing for northern rockfish in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of June 26, 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.

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

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (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.

The 2014 total allowable catch (TAC) of dusky rockfish in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA is 317 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2014 and 2015 harvest specifications for groundfish of the (79 FR 12890, March 6, 2014).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the 2014 TAC of dusky rockfish in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 50 mt, and is setting aside the remaining 267 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for dusky rockfish in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA.

After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The 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) 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 closure of directed fishing for dusky rockfish in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of June 26, 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.

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