On January 2, 2013, the President signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, Public Law 112-239, Subtitle H, 126 Stat. 1632, 1787 (2013) (amended by National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, Public Law 113-66, Sec. 1095, 127 Stat. 672, 878 (2013)), which created the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission (MCRMC). To establish procedures to facilitate public interaction with MCRMC, the agency is issuing interim final regulations under FOIA.

This interim final rule establishes procedures for MCRMC necessary to implement FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552. FOIA provides for the disclosure of agency records and information to the public, unless that information is exempted under statutory exemptions or exclusions. The procedures established herein are intended to ensure that MCRMC fully satisfies its responsibility to the public to disclose agency information.

These regulations establish procedures under FOIA to facilitate the interaction of the public with MCRMC. MCRMC'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 openness in FOIA decision making. This interim final rule parallels the procedures currently used by other agencies to implement FOIA.

MCRMC has determined that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the notice and comment and delayed effective requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act to publish this regulation as an interim final rule with a request for comments. MCRMC is a temporary, independent establishment with statutorily defined deadlines and a limited existence. It is the intent of the agency to be as transparent as practicable in making information available to the public. This regulation establishes procedures to facilitate MCRMC's interactions with the public and the public's access to information about MCRMC. In light of this agency's limited duration, as set forth in its enabling legislation, and the need for timely access, MCRMC has decided that full notice and comment rulemaking is impracticable and contrary to public policy. The absence of FOIA regulations could impair the public's ability to access information. MCRMC has determined that this interim final rule should be issued without a delayed effective date pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6) do not apply. This rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action for the purposes of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, a regulatory impact analysis is not required.

On December 10, 2009, Bombardier Aerospace applied for a type certificate for their new Models BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 series airplanes (hereafter collectively referred to as “CSeries”). The CSeries airplanes are swept-wing monoplanes with an aluminum alloy fuselage sized for 5-abreast seating. Passenger capacity is designated as 110 for the Model BD-500-1A10 and 125 for the Model BD-500-1A11. Maximum takeoff weight is 131,000 pounds for the Model BD-500-1A10 and 144,000 pounds for the Model BD-500-1A11.

Bombardier Aerospace proposes to reduce the margin between V C /M C and V D /M D required by Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 25.335(b) based on the incorporation of a high-speed protection system in the airplane's flight control laws. The airplane is equipped with a high-speed protection system that limits nose down pilot authority at speeds above V C /M C and prevents the airplane from actually performing the maneuver required under § 25.335(b)(1).

These special conditions are necessary to address the proposed high-speed protection system. These special conditions identify various symmetric and non-symmetric maneuvers that will ensure that an appropriate design dive speed is established. Symmetric (pitching) maneuvers are specified in § 25.331, “Symmetric maneuvering conditions.” Non-symmetric maneuvers are specified in § 25.349, “Rolling conditions,” and § 25.351, “Yaw maneuver conditions.”

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Bombardier Aerospace must show that the CSeries airplane meets the applicable provisions of part 25 as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-129.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the CSeries airplanes because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the CSeries airplanes must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36, and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under section 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).

The CSeries airplanes will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature: Bombardier Aerospace proposes to reduce the margin between V C /M C and V D /M D required by § 25.335(b) based on the incorporation of a high-speed protection system in the airplane's flight control laws. The high-speed protection system limits nose down pilot authority at speeds above V C /M C and prevents the airplane from actually performing the maneuver required under § 25.335(b)(1).

Section 25.335(b)(1) is an analytical envelope condition that was originally adopted in Part 4b of the Civil Air Regulations in order to provide an acceptable speed margin between design cruise speed and design dive speed. Flutter clearance design speeds and airframe design loads are impacted by the design dive speed. While the initial condition for the upset specified in the rule is 1g level flight, protection is afforded for other inadvertent overspeed conditions as well. Section 25.335(b)(1) is intended as a conservative enveloping condition for potential overspeed conditions, including non-symmetric ones. To establish that potential overspeed conditions are enveloped, Bombardier Aerospace needs to demonstrate that any reduced speed margin, based on the high-speed protection system, will not be exceeded in inadvertent or gust-induced upsets resulting in initiation of the dive from non-symmetric attitudes; or that the airplane is protected by the flight control laws from getting into non-symmetric upset conditions. Bombardier Aerospace needs to conduct a demonstration that includes a comprehensive set of conditions, as described below.

These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

Notice of Proposed Special Conditions No. 25-14-06-SC for the Bombardier Aerospace CSeries airplanes was published in the Federal Register on July 2, 2014 (79 FR 37674). No comments were received, and the special conditions are adopted as proposed.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 series airplanes. Should Bombardier Aerospace apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on two model series of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

The FAA has determined that notice of, and opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions is impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the design approval and thus delivery of the affected aircraft. In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon publication in the Federal Register .

We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

On December 10, 2009, Bombardier Aerospace applied for a type certificate for their new Models BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 series airplanes (hereafter collectively referred to as “CSeries”). The CSeries airplanes are swept-wing monoplanes with an aluminum alloy fuselage sized for 5-abreast seating. Passenger capacity is designated as 110 for the Model BD-500-1A10 and 125 for the Model BD-500-1A11. Maximum takeoff weight is 131,000 pounds for the Model BD-500-1A10 and 144,000 pounds for the Model BD-500-1A11.

Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Bombardier Aerospace must show that the CSeries airplanes meet the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25 as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-129.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the CSeries airplanes because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the CSeries airplanes must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36, and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under section 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).

The CSeries will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: Digital systems architecture composed of several connected data networks. This network architecture and configuration may be used for or interfaced with a diverse set of functions, including:

• Flight safety related control, communication, and navigation systems (aircraft control domain);

• Operation and administrative support (operator information services domain); and

• Passenger information and entertainment systems (passenger entertainment domain), and will have the capability to allow access to or by external network sources.

The CSeries digital systems network architecture is different from existing production (and retrofitted) airplanes as it allows new kinds of user access to previously isolated data networks connected to systems that perform functions required for the safe operation of the airplane. This proposed data network design and integration may result in security vulnerabilities from intentional or unintentional corruption of data and systems critical to the safety and maintenance of the airplane.

The existing regulations and guidance material did not anticipate these types of system architectures or access to airplane systems. Furthermore, 14 CFR regulations and current system safety assessment policy and techniques do not address potential security vulnerabilities that could be caused by unauthorized access to airplane data busses and servers. Therefore, these special conditions are issued to ensure that the security, integrity, and availability of airplane systems are not compromised by certain wired or wireless electronic connections between airplane data busses and networks.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Model No. BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11. Should Bombardier Aerospace apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on two model series of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.

The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the airplane, which is imminent, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

The FAA has determined that notice of, and opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions is impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the design approval and thus delivery of the affected aircraft. In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon publication in the Federal Register .

We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

On December 10, 2009, Bombardier Aerospace applied for a type certificate for their new Models BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 series airplanes (hereafter collectively referred to as “CSeries”). The CSeries airplanes are swept-wing monoplanes with an aluminum alloy fuselage sized for 5-abreast seating. Passenger capacity is designated as 110 for the Model BD-500-1A10 and 125 for the Model BD-500-1A11. Maximum takeoff weight is 131,000 pounds for the Model BD-500-1A10 and 144,000 pounds for the Model BD-500-1A11.

Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Bombardier Aerospace must show that the CSeries airplanes meet the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25 as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-129.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the CSeries airplanes because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the CSeries airplanes must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36, and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under section 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).

The CSeries will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: Digital systems architecture composed of several connected networks. This network architecture and network configuration may be used for or interfaced with a diverse set of functions, including:

• Flight safety related control, communication, and navigation systems (aircraft control domain);

• Operator business and administrative support (operator information domain); and

• Passenger information and entertainment systems (passenger entertainment domain), and will have the capability to allow access to or by external network sources.

The CSeries digital systems network architecture is novel or unusual for commercial transport airplanes as it allows connection to airplane electronic systems and networks, and access from aircraft external sources (e.g., operator networks, wireless devices, Internet connectivity, service provider satellite communications, electronic flight bags, etc.), to the previously isolated airplane electronic assets. Airplane electronic assets include electronic equipment and systems, instruments, networks, servers, software and electronic components, field-loadable software and hardware applications, databases, etc. This proposed design may result in network security vulnerabilities from intentional or unintentional corruption of data and systems required for the safety, operations, and maintenance of the airplane.

The existing regulations and guidance material did not anticipate these types of system architectures or access to airplane systems. Furthermore, 14 CFR regulations and current system safety assessment policy and techniques do not address potential security vulnerabilities that could be caused by unauthorized access to airplane data busses and servers. Therefore, these special conditions are issued to ensure that the security, integrity, and availability of airplane systems are not compromised by certain wired or wireless electronic connections between airplane data busses and networks.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Model No. BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11. Should Bombardier Aerospace apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on two model series of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.

The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the airplane, which is imminent, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

1. The applicant must ensure that the airplanes' electronic systems are protected from access by unauthorized sources external to the airplane, including those possibly caused by maintenance activity.

2. The applicant must ensure that electronic system security threats are identified and assessed, and that effective electronic system security protection strategies are implemented to protect the airplane from all adverse impacts on safety, functionality, and continued airworthiness.

3. The applicant must establish appropriate procedures to allow the operator to ensure that continued airworthiness of the aircraft is maintained, including all post type certification modifications that may have an impact on the approved electronic system security safeguards.

On December 10, 2009, Bombardier Aerospace applied for a type certificate for their new Models BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 series airplanes (hereafter collectively referred to as “CSeries”). The CSeries airplanes are swept-wing monoplanes with an aluminum alloy fuselage sized for 5-abreast seating. Passenger capacity is designated as 110 for the Model BD-500-1A10 and 125 for the Model BD-500-1A11. Maximum takeoff weight is 131,000 pounds for the Model BD-500-1A10 and 144,000 pounds for the Model BD-500-1A11.

Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Bombardier Aerospace must show that the CSeries airplanes meet the applicable provisions of part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-129 thereto.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the CSeries airplanes because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the CSeries airplanes must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36, and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under section 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).

The CSeries airplanes will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: The use of carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP) for most of the wing fuel tank structure. The ability of aluminum wing skins to resist penetration or rupture when impacted by tire debris is understood from extensive experience, but the ability of CFRP construction to resist these hazards has not been established. There are no existing regulations that adequately establish a level of safety with respect to the performance of the composite materials used in the construction of wing fuel tanks. It requires the consideration of fuel tank penetration, fuel leaks, discrete source damage tolerance, and the effects of shock waves generated by tire debris impact.

Accidents have resulted from uncontrolled fires caused by fuel leaks following penetration or rupture of the lower wing by fragments of tires or from uncontained engine failure. The Concorde accident in 2000 is the most notable example. That accident demonstrated an unanticipated failure mode in an airplane with an unusual transport airplane configuration. Impact to the lower wing surface by tire debris induced pressure waves within the fuel tank that resulted in fuel leakage and fire. Regulatory authorities subsequently required modifications to the Concorde to improve impact resistance of the lower wing or means to retain fuel if the primary fuel retention means is damaged.

In another incident, a Boeing Model 747 tire burst during an aborted takeoff from Honolulu, Hawaii. That tire debris penetrated a fuel tank access cover, causing substantial fuel leakage. Passengers were evacuated down the emergency chutes into pools of fuel that fortunately had not ignited.

These accidents highlight deficiencies in the existing regulations pertaining to fuel retention following impact of the fuel tanks by tire fragments. Following a 1985 Boeing Model 737 accident in Manchester, England, in which a fuel tank access panel was penetrated by engine debris, the FAA amended 14 CFR 25.963 to require fuel tank access panels that are resistant to both tire and engine debris (engine debris is addressed elsewhere). This regulation, § 25.963(e), only addressed the fuel tank access covers since service experience at the time showed that the lower wing skin of a conventional, subsonic airplane provided adequate inherent capability to resist tire and engine debris threats. More specifically, that regulation requires showing by analysis or tests that the access covers “. . . minimize penetration and deformation by tire fragments, low energy engine debris, or other likely debris.” Advisory Circular (AC) 25.963-1, Fuel Tank Access Covers, describes the region of the wing that is vulnerable to impact damage from these sources and provides a method to substantiate that the rule has been met for tire fragments. No specific requirements were established for the contiguous wing areas into which the access covers are installed, because of the inherent ability of conventional aluminum wing skins to resist penetration by tire debris. AC 25.963-1 specifically notes, “The access covers, however, need not be more impact resistant than the contiguous tank structure,” highlighting the assumption that the wing structure is more capable of resisting tire impact debris than fuel tank access covers.

These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards. To maintain the level of safety envisioned by 14 CFR 25.963(e), these special conditions establish a standard for resistance to potential tire debris impacts to the contiguous wing surfaces and require consideration of possible secondary effects of a tire impact, such as the induced pressure wave that was a factor in the Concorde accident. It takes into account that new construction methods and materials will not necessarily yield debris resistance that has historically been shown as adequate. The standard in these special conditions is based on the defined tire impact areas and tire fragment characteristics.

In addition, despite practical design considerations, some uncommon debris larger than that defined in paragraph 2 may cause a fuel leak within the defined area, so paragraph 3 of these special conditions also takes into consideration possible leakage paths. Fuel tank surfaces of typical transport airplanes have thick aluminum construction in the tire debris impact areas that is tolerant to tire debris larger than that defined in paragraph 2 of these special conditions. Consideration of leaks caused by larger tire fragments is needed to ensure that an adequate level of safety is provided.

Notice of proposed special conditions No. 25-14-03-SC for the Bombardier Aerospace CSeries airplanes was published in the Federal Register on June 3, 2014, (79 FR 31886). No comments were received, and the special conditions are adopted as proposed.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 series airplanes. Should Bombardier Aerospace apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model on the same type certificate incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model series of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued MCAI EASA AD No. 2014-0155, dated July 2, 2014 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

CEAPR has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin Number 161R3, dated September 6, 2012. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

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

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because there are no airplanes currently on the U.S. registry and thus, does not have any impact upon the public. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2014-0647; Directorate Identifier 2014-CE-027-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

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

We estimate that this AD will affect 0 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.

Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $0, or $0 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 1 work-hour and require parts costing $2,970, for a cost of $3,055 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2007-18-09, Amendment 39-15189 (72 FR 51164, September 6, 2007), which superseded AD 2005-24-06, Amendment 39-14386 (70 FR 70715, November 23, 2005). AD 2007-18-09 applied to all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 8, 2013 (78 FR 9341). The NPRM was prompted by a determination that previously allowed terminating actions no longer address the identified unsafe condition and that a new terminating action is necessary. The NPRM proposed to continue to require repetitive inspections of the upper support of the NLG, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary; and also provided a new optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections. The NPRM also proposed to install a new EMM BSCU standard, and add airplanes to the applicability. We are issuing this AD to prevent landings with the NLG turned 90 degrees from centerline, which could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2011-0201, dated October 13, 2011 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

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

United Airlines (UAL) stated that it concurs with the FAA's assertion that terminating action should consist of BSCU standard L4.9B, standard 10, or standard 10.1, rather than standard L4.1 or L4.5.

UAL stated that it is currently in the process of upgrading its BSCU to the enhanced EMM version specified in the NPRM (78 FR 9341, February 8, 2013) and is 81 percent complete.

UAL stated that the NPRM (78 FR 9341, February 8, 2013) mandates accomplishment of the BSCU replacement within 6 months after the effective date of the AD, and that it is concerned the vendor may not be able to support this relatively short deadline with sufficient numbers of enhanced BSCUs. UAL asserted that a more feasible solution with an acceptable level of safety would be:

• Continue repetitive inspections of the upper support of the nose landing gear (NLG) until replacement with the EMM BSCU.

• Continue repetitive inspections of the NLG for airplanes on which the terminating action per AD 2007-18-09, Amendment 39-15189 (72 FR 51164, September 6, 2007)—standard L4.1, L4.5, or L5-2 was done previously.

• Upgrade to the standard L4.9B, standard 10, or standard 10.1, could then be accomplished on attrition, as units are available from the BSCU manufacturer.

We disagree with the commenter's request. The compliance time for modification of EMM BSCU standard L4.9B was determined after conducting a risk assessment and determining the effect of associated risk on the worldwide fleet. We have determined that for twin wheel MLG, the repetitive inspection of the NLG upper support lugs and missing cylinder cannot be relied upon indefinitely until replacement with EMM BSCU standard L4.9B or applicable alternatives specified in paragraph (w) of this AD by attrition. Modification is not required by paragraph (v) of this AD for airplanes installed with bogie MLG. Only airplanes fitted with twin wheel MLG must do the modification within 6 months.

The compliance time was also established taking into consideration availability of parts. Operators have multiple options to install EMM BSCU standards in accordance with paragraph (w) of this AD. However, according to the provisions of paragraph (bb)(1) of this AD, we might approve requests to adjust the compliance time or allow alternative actions if the requests include substantiation that the new compliance time or alternative actions would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this final rule in this regard.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have removed Note 1 to paragraph (i) of the proposed AD (78 FR 9341, February 8, 2013) and included that information in paragraph (i) of this AD. This change does not affect the intent of paragraph (i) of this AD.

We have also revised paragraph (m) of this AD to remove a reference to Chapter 32 of the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM). As of the effective date of this AD, operators must contact the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA; as specified in paragraph (bb)(1) of this AD for approval to use this document. We also added a new Note 1 to paragraph (m) of this AD, which specifies that guidance for doing the installation required by paragraph (m) of this AD may be found in Chapter 32 of the Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 AMM.

In addition, we have clarified paragraph (o) of this AD to indicate which part numbers correspond to which EMM units.

We removed Note 2 to paragraph (p) of the proposed AD (78 FR 9341, February 8, 2013) and included that information in new paragraph (aa)(3) of this AD. We have redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly. This change does not affect the intent of paragraph (p) of this AD.

We removed Note 3 to paragraph (r) of the proposed AD (78 FR 9341, February 8, 2013) and included that information in paragraph (r) of this AD. This change does not affect the intent of paragraph (r) of this AD.

Also, we revised paragraph (x) of the proposed AD (78 FR 9341, February 8, 2013) to indicate that accomplishing a modification specified in paragraph (w) of this AD is also a terminating action for the inspections required by paragraph (t) of this AD.

Paragraph (y) of the proposed AD (78 FR 9341, February 8, 2013) included a typographical error in the exception phrase. We have revised this AD to clarify the exception by specifying “Except for the prohibition specified in paragraph (z) of this AD. . . .”

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 9341, February 8, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 9341, February 8, 2013).

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

We estimate that this AD affects about 755 products of U.S. registry.

The actions that are retained from AD 2007-18-09, Amendment 39-15189 (72 FR 51164, September 6, 2007), take about 3 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that were required by AD 2007-18-09 is $255 per product.

We estimate that it will take 35 work-hours per product to comply with the new basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $2,246,125, or $2,975 per product.

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD. We have no way of determining the number of products that might need these actions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2013-0088; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

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

The Census Bureau is responsible for collecting, compiling, and publishing export trade statistics for the United States under the provisions of Title 13, United States Code (U.S.C.), Chapter 9, Section 301. The Automated Export System (AES) is the primary instrument used for collecting export trade data, which are used by the Census Bureau for statistical purposes. Through the AES, the Census Bureau collects Electronic Export Information (EEI), the electronic equivalent of the export data formerly collected on the Shipper's Export Declaration, pursuant to the Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR), Title 15, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 30. Filing in the AES is not required for shipments excluded in Section 30.2(d) and shipments exempted in Subpart D that are not subject to Section 30.2(a)(1)(iv).

The Census Bureau published a Final Rule in the Federal Register on March 14, 2013 (78 FR 16366) that removed the exemptions for carnets and other temporary exports and goods previously imported under a Temporary Import Bond (TIB) exported in the same condition; it became effective April 5, 2014. In other words, this rule created an AES filing requirement for previously exempted items, such as carnets. With respect to eliminating these exemptions, the Department of the Treasury raised concerns and members of the trade community submitted letters to the Census Bureau regarding the new AES filing requirement for carnets, an international customs document that permits the tax-free and duty-free temporary export and import of goods for up to one year, and goods previously imported under a TIB. The comments centered on the concern that mandatory AES filing for carnets may be contrary to the Customs Convention on the ATA carnet for the Temporary Admission of Goods (ATA Convention), to which the U.S. is a contracting party. In addition, the trade community stated that, unless the exemptions were reinstated, it would be extremely difficult to comply with the FTR, particularly for goods moving on a foreign carnet. Since receiving this feedback, the Census Bureau and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) have reviewed this issue and determined that it is necessary to reinstate the exemptions from filing for temporary exports, including carnets, and goods that were previously imported under a TIB for return in the same condition as when exported. However, the Census Bureau and CBP will review these exemptions in partnership with the trade and may publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to address temporary exports, carnets, and TIBs in the future.

The Census Bureau is amending the following section of the FTR:

• Revise § 30.37(q) and (r) to reinstate the exemptions from AES filing for temporary exports, including carnets, and goods that were temporarily imported under a TIB for return in the same condition are exempt from AES filing.

The Census Bureau finds good cause pursuant to Title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.), 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and opportunity for public comment, as it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The Census Bureau is undertaking this amendment in response to comments from the public indicating that the current regulations may be contrary to the conditions of the Customs Convention on the ATA Carnets for the Temporary Admission of Goods (ATA Convention). In particular, members of the international trade community and the Department of the Treasury noted that the elimination of the AES filing exemptions for temporary exports, including carnets, may be contrary to the agreement by signatory nations to require such transactions to be filed in the AES. Removing the exemptions from filing may make the United States' regulations inconsistent with those of other signatory nations. This conflict could potentially lead other nations to implement additional filing requirements for carnets, thus impeding international trade. In addition, for goods moving on a foreign carnet, it is unclear who would file the required documentation, making it extremely difficult to comply with the FTR. It would be impracticable to allow for prior notice and opportunity for public comment as any such delay would prolong the Unites States' possible inconsistency with the terms of the ATA Convention. For these reasons, this rule reinstates the previous filing exemptions in § 30.37(q) and (r) of the FTR for temporary exports, including carnets, and goods that were imported under a TIB for return in the same condition as when imported. In doing so, this rule ensures consistency with the ATA Convention, reduces the filing requirement, avoids confusion, and eases compliance with the FTR.

Additionally, and for similar reasons, the Census Bureau finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness for this rule. This rule allows for an exemption to the AES filing requirements. This rule also imposes no additional requirements or obligations on any member of the public, and so delaying its effectiveness is unnecessary. Therefore, the Census Bureau has determined that it will make this rule effective on September 12, 2014.

Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and one has not been prepared.

This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. It has been determined that this rule does not contain policies with federalism implications as that term is defined under Executive Order 13132.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a current and valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. This rule contains a collection-of-information subject to the requirements of the PRA that has been approved under OMB control number 0607-0152.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 15 CFR part 30 is amended as follows:

NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries of the BSAI in the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska under the BSAI FMP. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared, and the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) approved, the BSAI FMP pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and other applicable laws. General regulations that pertain to U.S. fisheries appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600. Regulations implementing the BSAI FMP appear at 50 CFR part 679. Unless noted otherwise, all references to regulations in this rule are to regulations in Title 50 of the CFR.

This final rule implements Amendment 106 to the BSAI FMP. Under this rule, the owner of an AFA vessel may rebuild or replace an AFA vessel without any limitation on the length, weight, or horsepower of the rebuilt or replacement vessel when the rebuilt or replacement vessel is operating in the BSAI. Under this rule, the owner of an AFA catcher vessel in an inshore cooperative may remove the vessel from the inshore cooperative and assign the Bering Sea pollock catch history of the removed vessel to one or more vessels in the cooperative to which the removed vessel belonged.

NMFS published the Notice of Availability of Amendment 106 in the Federal Register on June 3, 2014 (79 FR 31914), with a 60-day comment period that ended on August 4, 2014. The Secretary approved Amendment 106 on September 2, 2014, after determining that Amendment 106 is consistent with the national standards in section 304 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the AFA, and other applicable laws.

NMFS published a proposed rule to implement Amendment 106 on June 18, 2014 (79 FR 34696). The 45-day comment period on the proposed rule ended August 4, 2014. NMFS received six comment letters on Amendment 106, the proposed rule, or the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) for this action. Two letters were from the same commenter. The letters addressed ten topics. NMFS summarizes and responds to these comments in the section of this preamble, “Comments on the FMP Text or the Proposed Rule.”

NMFS made three changes in the final rule. First, NMFS fixed an error, which was an incorrect reference in the proposed rule to another part of the proposed rule. Second, in response to the same comment from two commenters, NMFS changed the time period after the loss of a vessel during which an AFA vessel owner may replace or remove a vessel and not experience suspension of the fishing privileges of the lost vessel. NMFS changed it from a three-year time period to a five-year time period. Third, in response to a comment, NMFS clarified that this rule does not state the effect of removing an AFA catcher vessel from an inshore cooperative on fishing history of the removed vessel in the Pacific whiting fishery because that fishery occurs outside the EEZ off Alaska. NMFS explains these changes in the section of this preamble, “Changes from the Proposed Rule.”

The Secretary approved this final rule after determining that it is consistent with the BSAI FMP, including Amendment 106; the Magnuson-Stevens Act; and other applicable laws.

In the preamble to the proposed rule, NMFS provided a detailed review of the proposed rule implementing Amendment 106 (79 FR 34696, June 18, 2014). NMFS described the key provisions of the original AFA; described the provisions in the original AFA that strictly limited the replacement of AFA vessels; described the AFA amendments in the Coast Guard Act; described the history of Council action; and described in detail the provisions of the proposed rule (79 FR at 34697-34707). NMFS does not repeat those descriptions here. The proposed rule is available on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site (see Addresses). In this preamble, NMFS summarizes the original AFA, the AFA amendments in the Coast Guard Act, and the key elements of the final rule. In this preamble, all references to regulations are to regulations in Title 50 of the CFR.

The AFA was adopted in 1998. The original AFA is available on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site: https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries/afa/afa1998.pdf. The original AFA had two subtitles. Subtitle I pertained to the issuance of Federal fishery endorsements generally. Subtitle II pertained to the management of the Bering Sea pollock fishery. The United States Coast Guard, in conjunction with the Maritime Administration (MARAD), implements Subtitle I. NMFS implements Subtitle II.

Under Subtitle I, unless a vessel already had a Federal fishery endorsement as of September 25, 1997, a vessel could not receive a Federal fishery endorsement if it exceeded any of the statutory thresholds in the AFA: 165 feet in registered length, 750 gross registered tons, or engines capable of producing more than 3,000 shaft horsepower. All AFA vessels had Federal fishery endorsements as of September 25, 1997. Therefore, these statutory limits did not deprive any existing AFA vessel of a Federal fishery endorsement.

Subtitle II of the original AFA made significant changes in the management of the Bering Sea pollock fishery in five areas. The original AFA established sector allocations in the BSAI pollock fishery; determined eligible vessels and processors; allowed the formation of cooperatives; set limits on the participation of AFA vessels in other fisheries; and imposed special catch weighing and monitoring requirements on AFA vessels. These features of the original AFA are described in more detail in the preamble to the proposed rule (79 FR 34696, 34697-34698, June 18, 2014).

With respect to replacing AFA vessels, the original AFA explicitly prohibited the replacement of AFA vessels except under conditions specified in section 208(g) of the original AFA. The most stringent restriction in section 208(g) was that an owner of an AFA vessel could only replace an AFA vessel in the event of an “actual total loss or a constructive total loss” of the original AFA vessel. Thus, under the original AFA, a vessel owner could not replace an original AFA vessel until the AFA vessel sunk or was so damaged that it could not economically be repaired. An AFA vessel owner could not replace an original AFA vessel with another vessel simply because the vessel owner wanted a vessel that was safer, more fuel-efficient, or more operationally efficient in any way.

Further, if an owner of an AFA vessel did lose an AFA vessel, section 208(g) of the original AFA limited the length, tonnage, and horsepower of the replacement vessel. If the original AFA vessel exceeded any of the statutory thresholds for receiving a Federal fishery endorsement (165 feet registered length, 750 gross registered tons, or 3,000 shaft horsepower engines), the replacement vessel could not exceed the length, tonnage, or horsepower of the original AFA vessel. If the original AFA vessel was less than any of the statutory thresholds, the replacement vessel could exceed the length, weight, or horsepower of the original AFA vessel by 10 percent, but only up to the statutory thresholds of length, weight, or horsepower in the AFA.

As for rebuilding an original AFA vessel, the original AFA had no explicit provisions that allowed the owner of an AFA vessel to rebuild the vessel and maintain the vessel's AFA permit and the vessel's Federal fishery endorsement. As for removing an AFA vessel, the original AFA did not provide a mechanism for a vessel owner to remove an AFA catcher vessel from an inshore cooperative even if the catcher vessel was doing no or little actual fishing for the cooperative.

Thus, under the original AFA, if an owner of an AFA vessel wanted to replace, rebuild, or remove an AFA vessel, the owner was under severe restrictions for replacing, faced uncertainty with regard to rebuilding, and simply could not remove a vessel. These provisions of the original AFA limited the ability of the owners of AFA vessels to deal with an aging fleet. Of the 92 AFA catcher vessels active in the inshore and mothership sectors in 2011, all were built before 1992. Sixty were built before 1980 (Analysis, Table 1-7). Of the 21 catcher/processors with AFA permits, all were built before 1990. Fifteen were built before 1980 (Analysis, Table 1-26).

The AFA amendments in the Coast Guard Act amended the provisions of the original AFA that pertain to the issuance of Federal fishery endorsements. The AFA amendments allow AFA rebuilt and replacement vessels to receive a Federal fishery endorsement, even if the vessel did not have a Federal fishery endorsement as of September 25, 1997 (46 U.S.C. 12113(d)(2)(C)). Thus, an AFA rebuilt and AFA replacement vessel may now receive a Federal fishery endorsement even if the vessel exceeds the statutory thresholds for length, weight, and horsepower: 165 feet registered length, 750 gross registered tons, or 3,000 shaft horsepower. MARAD has proposed a rule to implement this provision in the AFA amendments (79 FR 33160, June 10, 2014).

The AFA amendments in the Coast Guard Act amended provisions of the original AFA that pertain to the management of the Bering Sea pollock fishery. The AFA amendments in the Coast Guard Act allow the rebuilding, replacement, and removal of AFA vessels to improve the safety and efficiency of the AFA fleet. Amendment 106 to the BSAI FMP adopts the provisions of the AFA amendments in the Coast Guard Act that pertain to the management of the Bering Sea pollock fishery. This final rule adopts the regulatory changes necessary to implement Amendment 106.

With respect to rebuilding and replacement, the final rule allows the owner of an AFA vessel to rebuild or replace an AFA vessel as long as the AFA rebuilt vessel or the AFA replacement vessel has a Federal fishery endorsement. Under the AFA Amendments to the Coast Guard Act, an AFA rebuilt or replacement vessel may receive a Federal fishery endorsement irrespective of the vessel's length, weight, or horsepower. Therefore, under the final rule, the owner of an AFA vessel may rebuild or replace an AFA vessel and receive an AFA permit on the rebuilt or replacement vessel without any limit on the length, weight, or horsepower of the AFA rebuilt or replacement vessel.

An AFA rebuilt vessel will have the same privileges and will be subject to the same restrictions as the vessel before rebuilding except (1) the AFA rebuilt vessel will not be subject to the maximum length overall (MLOA) restriction on a License Limitation Program (LLP) license with a Bering Sea or Aleutian Islands area endorsement when the AFA rebuilt vessel is operating in the BSAI, even if the vessel before rebuilding was subject to the MLOA restriction; and (2) an AFA rebuilt catcher vessel that is 125 feet length overall (LOA) or greater will be subject to the season restrictions in § 679.23 even if the vessel before rebuilding was less than 125 feet LOA and was not subject to those restrictions. These provisions are added by the final rule at § 679.4(l)(7)(i).

An AFA replacement vessel will have the same privileges and will be subject to the same restrictions as the vessel it is replacing except (1) the AFA replacement vessel will not be subject to the MLOA restriction on an LLP license with a Bering Sea or Aleutian Islands area endorsement when the AFA replacement vessel is operating in the BSAI, even if the replaced vessel was subject to the MLOA restriction; (2) an AFA replacement catcher vessel that is 125 feet LOA or greater will be subject to the season restrictions in § 679.23 even if the AFA replaced vessel was less than 125 feet LOA and was not subject to those restrictions; and (3) an AFA catcher vessel that is exempt from sideboard restrictions will maintain its sideboard exemption even if the vessel also becomes a replacement vessel for a vessel that did not have a sideboard exemption. These provisions are added by the final rule at § 679.4(l)(7)(ii).

The final rule at § 679.4(l)(1)(ii)(B) addresses the situation of an owner of an AFA vessel that loses an AFA vessel. The final rule provides that the owner of an AFA vessel has a reasonable, but not unlimited, time to replace or remove a lost AFA vessel and specifies that, during that time, the AFA permit on the lost vessel shall remain valid. The final rule allows the owner of an AFA vessel to maintain the AFA permit on the lost vessel for up to five years from December 31 of the year in which the vessel was lost.

The final rule does not lessen the significant restrictions in the AFA and in current regulations that apply to AFA vessels when those vessels participate in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). Critically, this rule does not affect the requirement that an AFA vessel—whether an original AFA vessel, an AFA rebuilt vessel, or an AFA replacement vessel—may only operate in the GOA if the AFA vessel is the named vessel on an LLP license, the AFA vessel is operating in an area for which the LLP license has an area endorsement, and the AFA vessel does not exceed the MLOA restriction on that license.

With respect to removal, this final rule at § 679.4(l)(7)(iii) allows the owner of an AFA catcher vessel in an inshore cooperative to remove that vessel from the cooperative and assign the Bering Sea pollock catch history of the removed vessel to another vessel or vessels in the cooperative. The vessels that receive the catch history must remain in the cooperative for at least one year from the date on which NMFS approves the removal of the vessel and assigns catch history to the receiving vessels.

Under the final rule at § 679.4(l)(7)(iv), the privilege of replacing and removing an AFA vessel comes with a significant restriction. A replaced or removed AFA vessel cannot receive a permit to operate in any fishery in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off Alaska unless the replaced or removed AFA vessel reenters the pollock fishery as a replacement AFA vessel. The restriction in the AFA amendments in the Coast Guard Act is actually more far-reaching, namely a replaced or removed AFA vessel cannot receive a Federal fishery endorsement at all unless the replaced or removed AFA vessel reenters the pollock fishery as a replacement AFA vessel (section 208(g)(5), section 210(b)(7)(B)). As noted, the United States Coast Guard, in conjunction with MARAD, will implement the restrictions in the AFA amendments on issuing Federal fishery endorsements.

NMFS made three changes in the regulatory text of the final rule from the regulatory text of the proposed rule (79 FR 34696, June 18, 2014). NMFS made the first change as a result of internal review and made the second and third changes in response to public comments.

First, NMFS fixed an error. The regulatory text of the proposed rule in § 679.4(l)(7)(iii), “Removal of AFA catcher vessel from the directed pollock fishery,” stated in § 679.4(l)(7)(iii)(A): “The owner of a catcher vessel that is designated on an AFA catcher vessel permit with an inshore endorsement may remove the catcher vessel from the directed pollock fishery, subject to the requirements in paragraph (B), (C), (D), and (E) of this paragraph (l)(7)(iii).” The reference to paragraph (E) was an error because there was no paragraph (E). The final rule removes the reference to paragraph (E) in § 679.4(l)(7)(iii)(A).

Second, NMFS changed the period during which the owner of an AFA lost vessel may replace or remove the lost vessel while maintaining without interruption the AFA permit and fishing privileges of the lost vessel. The proposed rule at § 679.4(l)(1)(ii)(B)( 3 ) would have established a 3-year period from December 31 of the year in which the vessel was lost. In the proposed rule, after the 3-year period, NMFS would suspend the AFA permit on the lost vessel if the owner had not replaced or removed the lost vessel but, after the 3-year period, would still process an application by the owner of the lost AFA vessel to replace or remove the lost vessel. The final rule keeps the process the same but changed § 679.4(l)(1)(ii)(B)( 3 ) from a 3-year period to a 5-year period. NMFS made this change in response to the same comment from two persons, which is described in Comment 3.

Third, NMFS clarified that the rule does not purport to state the effect of removal of AFA catcher vessels on any catch history that the removed vessel may have earned outside of the EEZ off Alaska. To do this, NMFS added the phrase “in the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska” after “all claims relating to the catch history of the removed catcher vessel” in § 679.4(l)(7)(iii)(C) so that the paragraph now reads: “Except for the assignment of the pollock catch history of the removed catcher vessel in paragraph (l)(7)(iii)(B) of this section, all claims relating to the catch history of the removed catcher vessel in the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska, including any claims to an exemption from AFA sideboard limitations, will be permanently extinguished upon NMFS' approval of the application to remove the catcher vessel and the AFA permit that was held by the owner of the removed catcher vessel will be revoked.” NMFS made this change in response to a public comment described in Comment 5 that raised the issue with regard to the fishing history of a removed vessel in the Pacific whiting fishery, which occurs outside the EEZ off Alaska.

NMFS received six letters with comments on Amendment 106, the proposed rule, or the Regulatory Review (RIR) for this action. Two letters were from the same commenter. These comments addressed 10 topics. The comments were from individual owners of AFA vessels, an industry group representing owners of AFA vessels, an owner of Amendment 80 vessels, and an industry group representing owners of Amendment 80 vessels.

Comment 1: NMFS received several comments of support for various aspects of the proposed rule. Three commenters supported allowing the owners of AFA vessels to rebuild or replace vessels to improve vessel safety or efficiency. Two commenters appreciated that the rule addressed the status of AFA permits after an AFA vessel is lost. Two commenters supported the prohibition on AFA replaced vessels participating in other fisheries. One commenter appreciated that the owner of an AFA vessel could remove the AFA vessel from fishing.

Response: NMFS notes this support.

Comment 2: The proposed definition of an AFA vessel is as follows: “An AFA vessel means a vessel that is designated on an AFA catcher vessel permit, an AFA catcher/processor permit, or an AFA mothership permit, and is thereby authorized to participate in the Bering Sea directed pollock fishery.” NMFS actually issues two types of AFA catcher/processor permits: A listed AFA catcher/processor permit and an unlisted AFA catcher/processor permit. The definition should be changed to specifically reflect the two types of AFA catcher/processor permits.

Response: NMFS acknowledges that under § 679.4(l)(2), it issues two types of AFA catcher/processor permits: (1) A listed AFA catcher/processor permit for AFA catcher/processors that were listed by name in the original AFA at section 208(e)(1) to (20), and (2) an unlisted AFA catcher/processor permit for AFA catcher/processors that were not listed by name but met the criteria in section 208(e)(21) of the original AFA. Only one catcher/processor, the Ocean Peace, received an unlisted AFA catcher/processor permit.

NMFS recognizes that the AFA and implementing regulations impose some restrictions on listed AFA catcher/processors that do not apply to the unlisted AFA catcher/processor. For example, section 211 of the original AFA imposed restrictions on listed AFA catcher/processors from harvesting and processing in fisheries besides Bering Sea pollock that did not apply to an unlisted AFA catcher/processor. The commenter pointed out that the proposed rule loosely referred to the “Limits on AFA vessels in other fisheries” in section 211 (79 FR 34696, 34698) whereas the explicit limits in section 211 apply to listed AFA catcher/processors, not unlisted AFA catcher/processors.

NMFS, however, does not see any need to change the definition of an AFA vessel in the final rule for two reasons. First, the definition in the proposed rule is accurate. An AFA catcher/processor is designated on an AFA catcher/processor permit. It is simply that there are two types of AFA catcher/processor permits: A listed AFA catcher/processor permit or an unlisted AFA catcher/processor permit.

Second, the definition in the proposed rule is not misleading because the proposed rule is clear that a replacement vessel is subject to the same requirements that applied to the replaced vessel. A replacement vessel for a vessel that was designated on a listed AFA catcher/processor permit will receive a listed AFA catcher/processor permit. A replacement vessel for a vessel that was designated on an unlisted AFA catcher/processor permit will receive an unlisted AFAcatcher/processor permit. The proposed rule stated at § 679.4(l)(7)(ii)(B) that the owner of a replacement vessel “will be subject to the same requirements that applied to the replaced vessel and will be eligible to use the AFA replacement vessel in the same manner as the replaced vessel,” subject to three specific exceptions not relevant to this comment.

The proposed rule carefully changed the prohibitions in § 679.7(k) so that all the prohibitions that applied to “listed AFA catcher/processors,” which might be read to apply only to the AFA catcher/processors listed as eligible in the original AFA, now apply to listed AFA catcher/processors and “catcher/processors designated on listed AFA catcher/processor permits.” Similarly, the proposed rule carefully changed the prohibitions in § 679.7(k) so that all the prohibitions that applied to “unlisted AFA catcher/processors” now apply to unlisted AFA catcher/processors and “catcher/processors designated on unlisted AFA catcher/processor permits.” With regard to observer requirements in § 679.51, the proposed rule made the same change in § 679.51(a)(2)(vi)(B( 1 ) and ( 3 ) so that all the requirements that applied to “listed AFA catcher/processors” now also apply to “catcher/processors designated on listed AFA catcher/processor permits,” and all requirements that applied to “unlisted AFA catcher/processors” now also apply to “catcher/processors designated on unlisted AFA catcher/processor permits.”

Comment 3: Two commenters stated that the owner of an AFA vessel should be allowed 5 years from December 31 of the year in which the vessel was lost to maintain, without interruption, the AFA permit and fishing privileges of the lost vessel. The proposed rule contained a 3-year period. The commenters gave five reasons in favor of a 5-year period rather than a 3-year period. First, the owner will have to deal with a crisis in the company's operations when a vessel was lost. This includes a Coast Guard investigation, insurance claims and settlements, and possibly other claims associated with the loss. Second, the owner has to consult and contract with a vessel design/architect firm, equipment vendors, and a shipyard to plan and build a new vessel. One commenter noted that the owner is under an obligation to rebuild the vessel in American shipyards. Third, the owner will need to obtain financing. Fourth, after a contract is signed, the shipyard has to schedule time and space to build the vessel, purchase the necessary material and equipment, and then build the vessel. Fifth, if the owner was lost at sea, the settlement of the owner's estate can take over a year.

Response: NMFS agrees with this comment. NMFS concludes that the reasons advanced by the commenters justify a 5-year period. Therefore, NMFS changed the final rule in § 679.4(l)(1)(ii)(B)( 3 ) to allow the owner of an AFA vessel up to 5 years from December 31 of the year in which the vessel was lost to maintain, without interruption, the AFA permit and fishing privileges of the lost vessel. NMFS notes that, in the proposed rule, it specifically invited comment on whether the 3-year period was adequate to allow the owner of a lost vessel to replace the vessel (79 FR 34696 and 34705, June 18, 2014).

Comment 4: If the owner of a lost AFA catcher vessel does not apply to replace the vessel within the 5-year period, NMFS will suspend the AFA permit and fishing privileges of the lost vessel. After the 5-year period, the owner of the lost vessel may still apply to replace the lost vessel. If the owner of a lost catcher vessel in an inshore cooperative applies to replace a lost catcher vessel after the 5-year period, the owner of the AFA vessel should be required to transfer the permit to a vessel in the cooperative of which the lost vessel was a member when the vessel was lost. Such a provision would help keep the system of inshore cooperatives intact.

Response: NMFS does not make any change in the proposed rule in response to this comment for three reasons. First, the AFA amendments did not limit the ability of the owner of an AFA vessel to select an AFA replacement vessel. The AFA amendments in section 208(g)(1) allow the owner of an AFA vessel to rebuild or replace an AFA vessel “in order to improve vessel safety or operational efficiency” and provide that the rebuilt or replacement vessel “shall be eligible in the same manner and subject to the same restrictions and limitations” as the vessel being rebuilt or replaced. The AFA amendments did not require the owner of any AFA vessel to choose a replacement from a particular category of vessels. Accordingly, NMFS did not propose that requirement in the proposed rule and does not think it is appropriate to include that requirement in the final rule.

Second, the AFA amendments in section 210(b)(7)(A)(ii) did expressly require that if the owner of an AFA vessel wanted to remove a vessel from an inshore cooperative, the owner had to assign the catch history of the removed vessel to another vessel or vessels in the cooperative and those vessels had to remain in that cooperative for at least one year after the removed vessel left the cooperative. Accordingly, the proposed and final rule contain that restriction at § 679.4(l)(7)(iii)(D). But the AFA amendments included no such express restriction on the ability of the owner of an AFA vessel to select a replacement vessel.

Third, the regulations restrict which inshore cooperative a replacement vessel may join and thus already provide an incentive for stability in cooperative membership. For an inshore cooperative to include the catch history attached to a replacement catcher vessel in the cooperative application, the vessel must meet the requirements in § 679.4(l)(6) to be a qualified catcher vessel for that cooperative. Under § 679.4(l)(6), a vessel is only qualified to be a member of a cooperative if the vessel meets the landing and permit requirements for cooperative membership in the vessel's last year of participation or is an AFA replacement vessel for a catcher vessel that met the permit and landing requirements. Thus, if the lost vessel could only have been a member of a particular inshore cooperative, the replacement vessel for the lost vessel initially can only be a member of that same cooperative, even if NMFS approves the replacement after the 5-year period. The replacement vessel stands in the shoes of the replaced vessel for cooperative membership and for other fishing privileges, even if the replaced vessel is a vessel that was lost more than five years before the vessel owner seeks to make the replacement.

Comment 5: The AFA amendments wisely allow the owners of AFA catcher vessels to remove vessels in the Fishery Exit Provisions. The proposed rule states that all claims relating to the catch history of a removed vessel shall be extinguished. The proposed rule properly extinguishes the exemption from AFA sideboards of a removed vessel. But the proposed rule is too broad if NMFS extinguishes the following claims of a removed vessel: A claim to Rockfish Quota Share; a claim to future catch shares in a GOA catch share program; a claim to catch shares in a Pacific whiting fishery limited access program.

Response: With respect to any aspect of the history of an AFA vessel in the Pacific whiting fishery, the comment alerted NMFS to the fact that the proposed rule at § 679.4(l)(7)(iii)(C) might be read to extinguish the history of an AFA vessel in that fishery. NMFS did not intend that. This rule will become part of 50 CFR part 679. Part 679 applies, and only can apply, to fisheries of the EEZ off Alaska. The Pacific whiting fishery does not occur in the EEZ off Alaska. This fishery occurs in the area of the EEZ within the jurisdiction of the Pacific Council as described in section 302 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, namely “fisheries of the Pacific Ocean seaward of [California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho]. NMFS therefore changed § 679.4(l)(7)(iii)(C) to clarify that it applies to fishing history earned in the EEZ off Alaska.

NMFS notes that the provision requiring extinguishment of claims based on the catch history of a removed vessel applies to permits that would enable the owner of the vessel to receive permits in any fishery anywhere within the EEZ, not only in the EEZ off Alaska. The AFA amendments amended section 210(b) so that it now has section 210(b)(7)(B), which states, in part, “[A]ny claim (including relating to catch history) associated with such vessel [a removed vessel] that could qualify any owner of such vessel for any permit to participate in any fishery within the exclusive economic zone of the United States shall be extinguished.” It is simply that a rule in 50 CFR part 679 cannot extinguish claims in fisheries outside of the EEZ off Alaska.

With respect to claims relating to fishing history in the EEZ off Alaska, it is important to remember that the AFA amendments only require NMFS to extinguish all claims based on the catch history of a vessel in an inshore cooperative when the vessel is removed from the cooperative. If the owner of an AFA vessel replaces, rather than removes, an AFA catcher vessel with an inshore endorsement, NMFS will issue the replacement vessel all the fishing permits and licenses that were held by the replaced vessel so that the replacement vessel may operate in the same manner as the replaced vessel. Furthermore, the owner of an AFA vessel may select as a replacement vessel a vessel that already has an AFA permit.

If the owner of an AFA vessel chooses to remove, rather than replace, a catcher vessel in an inshore cooperative, NMFS must extinguish any claims to future permits in future catch share programs that are associated with the catch history of the removed vessel. NMFS bases this conclusion on the clear language of section 210(b)(7)(B) of the amended AFA: “Except as provided in subparagraph (C), a vessel that is removed pursuant to this paragraph shall be permanently ineligible for a fishery endorsement, and any claim (including relating to catch history) associated with such vessel that could qualify any owner of such vessel for any permit to participate in any fishery within the exclusive economic zone of the United States shall be extinguished, unless such removed vessel is thereafter designated to replace a vessel to be removed pursuant to this paragraph.” The exception in subparagraph (C) is for four named vessels. This comment does not refer to any of the four named vessels.

The extinguishment language in section 210(b)(7)(B) is strikingly broad: “any claim” associated with such vessel that could qualify “any owner” of such vessel for “any period” to participate in “any fishery” within the EEZ “shall be extinguished.” NMFS does not believe that the statute gives it authority to select which catch history of a removed vessel it should extinguish and which catch history it should not extinguish. If NMFS had such authority, the statute would address this issue and provide criteria, or at least guidance, as to which catch history of a removed vessel NMFS should extinguish and which catch history it should not.

NMFS does not, however, believe that the statute requires it to revoke any permits that it has already issued based on the catch history of a removed vessel. The AFA amendments direct NMFS to extinguish “any claim (including relating to catch history) associated with such vessel that could qualify” the owner of an AFA removed vessel for a permit. NMFS concludes that this refers to permits that NMFS might issue in the future based on a claim made in the future. If NMFS has already issued a permit, the owner of the vessel does not merely have a “claim” to a permit. The owner has a permit.

NMFS concludes that this reasoning applies with equal force to catch history of a removed vessel that NMFS has already assigned to an LLP license under the Rockfish Program at § 679.80. The holder of the LLP license may transfer that LLP license with any Rockfish QS assigned to that license within the restrictions at § 679.81(f). Thus, NMFS does not view issued Rockfish QS as a “claim” to QS but as QS that it has issued; that it has assigned to a particular LLP license; that may be used by different vessels if those vessels are named on the LLP license; and that may be transferred to another person when the LLP license is transferred to another person. However, upon removal of a catcher vessel, NMFS will extinguish all claims to new fishing permits and new fishing privileges that could be based on the catch history of the removed vessel.

NMFS notes that 16 AFA catcher vessels have an exemption from GOA sideboards. The owners of these AFA catcher vessels will have to carefully consider replacing, rather than removing, their vessels. If the owner of an AFA catcher vessel replaces an AFA catcher vessel with an exemption from AFA sideboards in the GOA, NMFS will issue the replacement catcher vessel an AFA permit with an exemption from AFA sideboards in the GOA. If the owner of an AFA catcher vessel removes a vessel with an exemption from GOA sideboards, NMFS will extinguish the sideboard exemption.

Comment 6: AFA replacement vessels will likely have more capacity than the vessels they replace. AFA rebuilt vessels will likely have more capacity than the vessel before rebuilding. This may mean that AFA replacement and rebuilt vessels will catch more fish. For example, AFA replacement and rebuilt vessels may catch more yellowfin sole in the BSAI. NMFS should be vigilant that AFA vessels do not adversely impact other fisheries.

Response: AFA vessels—whether original, rebuilt, or replacement—are strictly limited in their activities in fisheries other than the Bering Sea pollock fishery. The Analysis of this action at § 1.9 describes the restrictions on AFA vessels in current regulations in both the BSAI and the GOA. NMFS will continue to enforce those restrictions. NMFS does not believe that this rule will make it more difficult to manage the yellowfin sole fishery or other fisheries in which AFA vessels participate.

With respect to yellowfin sole in the BSAI, the listed AFA catcher/processors and the AFA catcher vessels are limited to the amount of yellowfin sole these vessels harvested in the 1995-1997 period, as a percentage of the total allowable catch (TAC) for each year, subject to one exception (§ 679.64(a)(1)(iii), § 679.64(b)(3)(iii)). The exception was part of the Amendment 80 Program: NMFS removes AFA sideboard limits for yellowfin sole in the BSAI in years when the initial TAC level for that species assigned to the Amendment 80 sector and the BSAI trawl limited access sector is fairly high, namely 125,000 metric tons or greater. Final Rule, 72 FR 52668, 52726 (Sept. 14, 2007). By regulation, AFA vessels are not restricted to their historical catch of yellowfin sole in years when the aggregate initial TAC for yellowfin sole in the BSAI assigned to the Amendment 80 sector and the BSAI trawl limited access sector is 125,000 metric tons or greater (§ 679.64(a)(1)(v); § 679.64(b)(6)).

If the Council determines that stricter AFA sideboard limits on yellowfin sole or any other species are necessary, it would have to pursue that rulemaking. That would be a separate action.

Comment 7: If the Council proposes a GOA trawl catch share program in the future, the program should eliminate the maximum length overall restriction on the LLP licenses assigned to the vessels that receive fishing privileges under the new program.

Response: This is not a comment on the proposed rule. If the Council and NMFS develop a GOA trawl catch share program, the commenter should participate in the Council process and submit comments as part of the Secretarial rulemaking process.

Comment 8: AFA catcher/processors should not be able to participate in Amendment 80 fisheries.

Response: The Amendment 80 Program is a limited access program that authorizes vessels to harvest a specific number of units of certain groundfish species, but not pollock, in the BSAI. The permit regulations for Amendment 80 permits are primarily at 50 CFR 679.4(o).

Only one AFA catcher/processor, the Ocean Peace, may participate in an Amendment 80 sector fishery. The Ocean Peace is the only AFA catcher/processor that also has an Amendment 80 permit. In the future, the only AFA vessel that could participate in an Amendment 80 sector fishery would be the Ocean Peace or a replacement vessel for the Ocean Peace.

Comment 9: The IRFA summary in the proposed rule incorrectly states that all AFA catcher/processors are affiliated through membership in the Pollock Conservation Cooperative. This is inaccurate. The Ocean Peace is an AFA catcher/processor and is not a member of the Pollock Conservation Cooperative.

Response: The commenter is correct. The statement in the IRFA summary was in error. The Ocean Peace is an AFA catcher/processor and is not a member of the Pollock Conservation Cooperative. NMFS corrected the statement in the FRFA, which is contained in this rule.

Comment 10: The Ocean Peace is currently 219 feet. The Ocean Peace is named on an LLP license with area endorsements for the Bering Sea, the Aleutian Islands, and the Western Gulf. The vessel's LLP license has a current MLOA restriction of 219 feet. If the owner of the Ocean Peace rebuilds the Ocean Peace so that it is longer than 219 feet, or replaces the Ocean Peace with a vessel that is longer than 219 feet, does this rule affect the current regulation that NMFS assigns an MLOA of 295 feet to an LLP license on which an Amendment 80 replacement vessel is the named vessel? The Ocean Peace is the only vessel that is named on both an AFA permit and an Amendment 80 Quota Share permit.

Response: If the owner of the Ocean Peace rebuilds the Ocean Peace or acquires a replacement vessel for the Ocean Peace, NMFS will amend the LLP groundfish license that names the Ocean Peace and will assign an MLOA on that LLP license of 295 feet. The rebuilt Ocean Peace or the replacement vessel for the Ocean Peace would then be subject to an MLOA of 295 feet when it participates in any fishery in the GOA. NMFS would take these actions based on the current regulations for replacing an Amendment 80 vessel. See 50 CFR 679.4(o)(4); 50 CFR 679.4(k)(3)(i)(C); and 50 CFR 679.2 (definition of Maximum LOA, paragraph (2)(iv)).

The above regulations implemented Amendment 97 to the BSAI FMP. The subject of Amendment 97 was the replacement of Amendment 80 vessels (Final Rule, 77 FR 59852 (October 1, 2012)). Under Amendment 97, an Amendment 80 rebuilt vessel is treated as an Amendment 80 replacement vessel. All Amendment 80 replacement vessels must be classed and load lined or, if the vessel cannot be classed and load lined, the vessel must be enrolled in the Alternative Compliance and Safety Agreement Program of the U.S. Coast Guard. 77 FR at 59867 (NMFS Response to Comment 11).

The Ocean Peace also has an AFA permit to participate in the directed pollock fishery as a catcher/processor. Therefore, the Ocean Peace is subject to the AFA, as amended by the Coast Guard Act, Amendment 106, and this final rule. Under this rule, the owner of the Ocean Peace may rebuild or replace the Ocean Peace to improve safety or efficiency without limitation on the length of the rebuilt or replaced vessel, notwithstanding the MLOA restriction on the LLP license on which the Ocean Peace is named. Accordingly, under this rule at § 679.2 and § 679.4(k)(3)(i)(E), if the Ocean Peace is rebuilt or replaced, the rebuilt Ocean Peace or its replacement vessel will be exempt from the MLOA on the LLP license that names the Ocean Peace or its replacement vessel when the Ocean Peace or its replacement vessel is participating in the BSAI pursuant to that LLP license.

NMFS notes two ways that this rule could affect the ability of the Ocean Peace to participate in the GOA. First, under provisions added at § 679.4(l)(7)(iv), if the Ocean Peace becomes a replaced or removed AFA vessel, it would be permanently ineligible to participate in any fishery in the EEZ off Alaska unless it reenters the fishery as an AFA replacement vessel. Second, under provisions added at § 679.4(l)(7)(ii)(B), if the Ocean Peace becomes a replacement vessel for any AFA catcher/processor or AFA catcher vessel, the Ocean Peace would operate subject to the restrictions and limitations of the vessel it replaced.

The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, determined that this final rule is consistent with the BSAI FMP, including Amendment 106, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the AFA, and other applicable laws.

Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. The preamble to the proposed rule and the preamble to this final rule serve as the small entity compliance guide. This rule does not require any additional compliance from small entities that is not described in the preamble to the proposed rule. Copies of this final rule are available from NMFS at the following Web site: http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov

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

The Council and NMFS conducted a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) pursuant to Executive Order 12866. The RIR assessed the costs and benefits of Alternative 1, Alternative 2, and four options under Alternative 2. Alternative 1 was no change in the regulations in 50 CFR part 679. Alternative 2 was changing the regulations to conform to NMFS' interpretation of the AFA as amended by the Coast Guard Act. The four options under Alternative 2 would have imposed additional restrictions on AFA vessels when these vessels participate in the GOA, over and above restrictions in the AFA and current regulations. The Council and NMFS concluded that Alternative 2 is likely to result in net benefits to the nation. NMFS published the RIR in a combined document with the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA). This rule refers to the RIR/IRFA as the Analysis. A copy of the Analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ).

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) contains the requirements for the FRFA in section 604(a)(1) through (6) of the RFA. The FRFA must contain:

1. A succinct statement of the need for, and objectives of, the rule;

2. A summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, a summary of the assessment of the agency of such issues, and a statement of any changes made in the proposed rule as a result of such comments;

3. The response of the agency to any comments on the proposed rule by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration;

4. A description and an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule will apply, or an explanation of why no such estimate is available;

5. A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record; and

6. A description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was rejected.

NMFS prepared an IRFA that addressed the requirements described in section 603(b)(1) through (5) of the RFA. This FRFA incorporates the IRFA and the summary of the IRFA in the proposed rule (79 FR 34696, June 18, 2014). As noted, NMFS published the IRFA in a combined document with the RIR. The RIR/IRFA or Analysis is available on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site: http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

This rule is needed to conform current regulations to the AFA amendments in the Coast Guard Act. The rule is also needed to allow the owners of AFA vessels to rebuild and replace their vessels to improve safety and efficiency, even if an AFA vessel has not sunk or been damaged beyond repair. The rule is also needed to allow the owners of AFA catcher vessels in inshore cooperatives to remove those vessels from the cooperative, when the owner is willing to withdraw the catcher vessel from all activity that requires a Federal fishery endorsement except to possibly use the removed vessel as an AFA replacement vessel in the future. The need for, and objectives of, this rule are further explained in the preamble to the proposed rule in the sections, “The Need for Action” and “Proposed Action.” (79 FR 34696, June 18, 2014).

The proposed rule was published on June 18, 2014 (79 FR 34696). The 45-day comment period on the proposed rule ended August 4, 2014. NMFS received one comment on the IRFA, namely that the IRFA summary in the proposed rule incorrectly stated that all AFA catcher/processors were members of the Pollock Conservation Cooperative. NMFS agreed this was incorrect because the Ocean Peace is an AFA catcher/processor and is not a member of the Pollock Conservation Cooperative. NMFS corrected this statement in the FRFA. NMFS describes this comment and its response in Comment 9. NMFS did not receive any other comment on the IRFA. NMFS did not receive any comments on the impacts of this action on small entities.

NMFS did not receive any comments on the proposed rule from the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).

NMFS concludes that this rule does not directly regulate any small entities. The SBA establishes size criteria for small entities in all major industry sectors in the United States, including fish harvesting and fish processing businesses. On June 12, 2014, the SBA issued a final rule, effective July 14, 2014, that adjusted the annual receipts standard for small businesses based on inflation (79 FR 33647). The SBA rule increased the annual receipts standard for entities in Finfish Fishing from $19.0 million to $20.5 million. AFA vessels receive their revenues predominately from finfish fishing. Therefore, the IRFA and the FRFA apply the finfish standard.

This action directly regulates the owners of vessels that are designated on AFA permits; these vessels are catcher vessels, catcher/processor vessels, and motherships. In 2013, 105 catcher vessels, 21 catcher/processors, and 3 motherships were designated on AFA permits (Analysis, Section 2.4). In assessing whether an entity is small, the RFA requires NMFS to consider affiliations between entities. All AFA catcher vessels are members of one of eight cooperatives delivering pollock to catcher/processors, to inshore processing plants, or to motherships (Analysis, Section 2.4).

NMFS concludes that none of the AFA vessels or AFA cooperatives are small entities. With respect to the seven AFA catcher vessels that are authorized to deliver to catcher/processors, these seven catcher vessels have formed the High Seas Catchers' Cooperative (HSCC). The HSCC leases the pollock allocation of its members to the Pollock Conservation Cooperative, a cooperative that comprises the nineteen listed AFA catcher/processors (Analysis, Section 1.9.2). The members of the Pollock Conservative Cooperative had estimated 2012 gross revenues from pollock alone in excess of $500 million (Analysis, Section 2.4). Thus, applying the revised, inflation-adjusted, standard of $20.5 million, all AFA entities in the catcher/processor sector—catcher vessels, catcher/processors, and the cooperatives of these vessels—are still large entities.

With respect to AFA catcher vessels that deliver to inshore processing plants and to motherships, all of these AFA catcher vessels are members of one of seven cooperatives. The IRFA stated: “The seven cooperatives delivering to processing plants or motherships had gross revenues from pollock alone in excess of $19 million, and/or were affiliated with processing operations that themselves met the large entity threshold of 500 employees for entities of that type, and/or were affiliated with processors who did” (Analysis, Section 2.4). The gross revenues from pollock for each of these cooperatives also exceeds $20.5 million dollars, and the affiliation relationships considered in the IRFA continue to exist. Therefore, all AFA catcher vessels that deliver to inshore plants or motherships, and the cooperatives of those vessels, are large entities.

With respect to AFA motherships, the IRFA states: “Three motherships accept deliveries of pollock from catcher vessels. While these vessels are authorized to join the cooperative of catcher vessels making such deliveries, they have not recently chosen to do so. However, each of these motherships is believed to be a large entity, based on corporate affiliations with other large processing firms.” (Analysis, Section 2.4). NMFS reaffirms this conclusion in this FRFA.

Thus, NMFS concludes that all of the entities directly regulated by this action are “large” entities for the purpose of the RFA.

Since this action does not directly regulate any small entities, this action does not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on any small entities. This action imposes one additional reporting requirement on the owner of an AFA rebuilt vessel. If the owner of an AFA vessel rebuilds an AFA vessel, the owner shall submit the documentation for the rebuilt vessel to NMFS within 30 days of the issuance of the documentation. Apart from this requirement, the owners of AFA rebuilt vessels would be subject to the same recordkeeping and reporting requirements after rebuilding as before rebuilding.

Under this action, the owners of AFA replacement vessels are subject to the same recordkeeping and reporting requirements that applied to the replaced, or former, AFA vessel. Under this action, if a vessel is removed, the owners of the AFA vessels that are assigned the catch history of the removed vessel are subject to the same recordkeeping and reporting requirements after they are assigned the catch history of the removed vessel as before they were assigned the catch history of the removed vessel.

To implement this rule, NMFS has created an application form for the owner of an AFA vessel who wishes to take any of the actions allowed by this rule. The application form allows the owner of an AFA vessel to notify NMFS of rebuilding, to request to replace an AFA vessel, or to request removal of an AFA catcher vessel from an inshore cooperative.

Section 604 of the RFA requires that NMFS describe any significant alternatives to the proposed action that would accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and would minimize any significant adverse economic impacts on directly regulated small entities. Since this action does not directly regulate any small entities, this action has no adverse impacts on small entities and, therefore, there are no alternatives to this action that would minimize adverse impacts on small entities.

This rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control Number 0648-0393. Public reporting burden for the American Fisheries Act (AFA) Permit: Rebuilt, Replacement, or Removed Vessel Application is estimated to average 2 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection-of-information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate, or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see ADDRESSEES ) and by email to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax to (202) 395-5806.

Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. All currently approved NOAA collections of information may be viewed at: http://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/prasubs.html.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 15 CFR part 902 and 50 CFR part 679 as follows:

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

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

Between 6:45 a.m. until 9:30 a.m. on September 13 and 14, 2014, a triathlon/swimming races will be held offshore of Sackets Harbor, Sackets, NY. The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that large scale swimming event on a navigable waterway will pose a significant risk to participants and the boating public.

With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and vessels during the IncreDoubleman Triathlon event. This zone will be effective and enforced from 6:45 a.m. until 9:30 a.m. on September 13 and 14, 2014. The zone will encompass waters of Lake Ontario near Sackets Harbor, NY. Specifically, the safety zone will cover all waters of Lake Ontario landward of a line connecting the following points: 43°57′0.359″ N and 76°7′14.847″ W extending northeast to 43°57′12.704″ N and 76°7′2.644″ W and then extending east to 43°57′11.037″ N and 76°6′50.054″ W (NAD 83). The zone will include waters leading into, and away from, any marinas located in close proximity to the race area.

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone will be authorized on a case by case basis after contacting the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

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

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

We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a maximum of 5.5 hours. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. The safety zone will allow vessels to transit through with approval from the Coast Guard on-scene representative.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this rule on small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit a portion of Black River Bay in Sackets Harbor, NY on the mornings of September 13 and 14. This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This safety zone will allow for the passage of vessels through the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port. The Captain of the Port can be reached via VHF channel 16. Before the activation of the zone, we would issue local Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone and, therefore it 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 is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable to provide a full comment period due to lack of time before the high speed boat race is planned for this season. Completing the NPRM process and providing notice and a comment period is impracticable because it would unnecessarily delay this rule and the immediate safety measures it provides to the event participants, patrol vessels, spectator craft and other vessels transiting the event area. Additionally, the high speed boat race is advertised to the local community by and through the I-10 Race Promotions. Delaying the safety zone's effective date to complete the NPRM process would interfere with the advertised and planned boat race and would unnecessarily interfere with contractual obligations related to this event. The Coast Guard will provide advance notifications to users of the affected waterways of the safety zone via marine information broadcasts and local notice to mariners.

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

I-10 Race Promotions is sponsoring the Lucas Oil Thunder on the River, which will involve 150 drag boats, 10 to 50 feet in length from across the United States and Canada. The safety zone will cover the majority of Thompson Bay. This temporary safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, crew, spectators, sponsor vessels, other vessels, and users of the waterway, specifically in minimizing vessel wakes by transiting vessels in the vicinity of the racing area. Unnecessary wakes can disrupt the racing boats and could cause injury or damage to the racing vessels.

The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone that will be enforced from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on October 10, 2014 through October 12, 2014. The effect of the temporary safety zone will be to restrict navigation in the vicinity of the boat race site until the conclusion of the races. The limits of the safety zone will include all the navigable waters of Thompson Bay encompassed by drawing a line from point to point along the following coordinates:

The safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the crew, spectators, participants, and other vessels and users of the waterway. Persons and vessels will be prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative, during the proposed times. The three day event will include official racing on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will publish a local notice to mariners (LNM) and the event sponsor through Lake Havasu City has extensively advertised the marine event with the public.

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

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This determination is based on the size, location, and the limited duration of the safety zone. Additionally, to the maximum extent practicable, the event sponsor will assist with the movement of boaters desiring to transit the racing area during non-racing times throughout the three days. There is also an alternate route boaters can take to bypass the racing area to get from southern Lake Havasu to northern Lake Havasu.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the impacted portion of Lake Havasu from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on October 10, 2014 through October 12, 2014.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. Although the safety zone would apply to the majority of Thompson Bay, boating traffic would still be allowed to pass through the zone at regular intervals, and with Captain of the Port approval during boat races. The event sponsor will to their maximum extent assist boaters wishing to transit the racing area during non-racing times throughout the three days.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Coast Guard will enforce a segment of the Safety Zone; Brandon Road Lock and Dam to Lake Michigan including Des Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago River, Calumet-Saganashkee Channel, Chicago, IL, listed in 33 CFR 165.930. Specifically, the Coast Guard will enforce this safety zone on all waters of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal between Mile Marker 296.1 to Mile Marker 296.7. Enforcement will occur intermittently from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Monday through Friday, from September 3, 2014, to September 30, 2014. In the event that the installation of the new permanent fish barrier cannot be completed in this timeframe, due to inclement weather or other unforeseen circumstances, this zone will be enforced from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. on October 1, 2014, through November 26, 2014, excluding October 13, 2014, and November 11, 2014.

This schedule supersedes previously published schedules for enforcement of 33 CFR 165.930 due to the installation of a new permanent fish barrier (USCG 2011-0228-0024, 0025, 0026). The Captain of the Port suspends these previously issued schedules.

This enforcement action is necessary because the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, has determined that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' installation of a new permanent fish barrier poses risks to life and property. Because of these risks, it is necessary to control vessel movement during the operations to prevent injury and property loss.

In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23, entry into, transiting, mooring, laying up, or anchoring within the enforced area of this safety zone by any person or vessel is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan or her 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. The Captain of the Port representative may be contacted via U.S. Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan on VHF channel 16.

This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.930 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this publication in the Federal Register , the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, will also provide notice through other means, which may include Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Local Notice to Mariners, local news media, distribution in leaflet form, and on-scene oral notice. Additionally, the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, may notify representatives from the maritime industry through telephonic and email notifications.

Section 203 of the Honoring America's Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012, Public Law 112-154, 126 Stat. 1165, 1177, amended 38 U.S.C. 2101(b) to expand the eligibility for members of the Armed Forces and veterans with certain vision impairments for special home adaptation grants. Prior to the amendment, eligible individuals with vision impairments were entitled to receive special home adaptation grants if the disability was rated as permanent and total and due to blindness in both eyes with 5/200 visual acuity or less. See 38 U.S.C. 2101(b)(1)(A) (2011). Section 203 redefines qualifying blindness as blindness in both eyes, having central visual acuity of 20/200 or less in the better eye with the use of a standard correcting lens. 126 Stat. at 1177. Section 203 also states that, for the purposes of 38 U.S.C. 2101(b)(2), an eye with a limitation in the fields of vision such that the widest diameter of the visual field subtends an angle no greater than 20 degrees shall be considered as having a central visual acuity of 20/200 or less. 126 Stat. at 1177.

VA finds that the language of the statute is clear on its face. Specifically, to qualify for this benefit, a claimant's disability must be due to blindness in both eyes having either (1) central visual acuity of 20/200 or less in the better eye with the use of a standard correcting lens or (2) an eye with a limitation in the fields of vision such that the widest diameter of the visual field subtends an angle no greater than 20 degrees. In section 203, Congress also eliminated the requirement that qualifying blindness be permanently and totally disabling by clearly distinguishing it from those conditions which still require a finding of permanent and total disability. 126 Stat. at 1177.

Accordingly, VA is amending 38 CFR 3.809a(b), the implementing regulation for 38 U.S.C. 2101(b), to reflect the previously discussed statutory amendments. For clarity, VA is also reorganizing and making technical corrections to § 3.809a(b). No substantive changes are intended from the reorganization and technical corrections.

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Secretary) finds good cause under the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to publish this rule without prior opportunity for public comment. This amendment merely revises VA's regulations to comply with a statutory mandate that VA provide special home adaptation grants to members of the Armed Forces and veterans with certain vision impairments. The regulatory change reflects the change in statute that VA is adopting directly, without change, into VA's regulations and does not involve interpretation of the statutory provision. Also, the reorganization and technical corrections made by this rule do not alter any substantive rights or duties. Therefore, prior notice and opportunity for public comment is unnecessary. Additionally, for the reasons previously stated, the Secretary finds good cause to dispense with the delayed-effective-date requirement of 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

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

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

The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). This final rule will directly affect only individuals and will not directly affect small entities. Only VA beneficiaries will be directly affected. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this final rule is exempt from the regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of section 604.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This final rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.

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

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers and titles for the programs affected by this document are Veterans Medical Care Benefits, 64.009; Specially Adapted Housing for Disabled Veterans, 64.106; and Veterans Compensation for Service-Connected Disability, 64.109.

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Jose D. Riojas, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on September 4, 2014, for publication.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, VA amends 38 CFR part 3 as follows:

To ensure the accuracy of VA's regulations, VA is updating the cross-references and authority citations in 38 CFR part 17. Virtually every section in part 17 has been amended, often more than once, since part 17's initial publication on November 27, 1948, originally codified as part 25 in 38 CFR's first publication in 1938. 13 FR 7155. As regulations in part 17 were amended, other regulations that cross-referenced the amended regulations were not always updated. In addition, various statutes cited in our regulations have been renumbered since the initial publication of part 17. Finally, we have identified a few instances of erroneous references or citations to statutes and to regulations in part 17. Therefore, VA is amending the citations and authorities in its medical regulations to correct these oversights. VA is not making any substantive edits to the content of the sections amended by this rulemaking.

We are also amending the authority for part 43 of 38 CFR, as discussed below.

Paragraph (a) of § 17.30 defines medical services. Paragraph (a)(1) of § 17.30 cites 38 U.S.C. 1762 as the source of the statutory definition for preventive health services. The text of section 1762 was transferred to subsection (9) of 38 U.S.C. 1701 by the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992, Sec. 513, Public Law 102-585, 106 Stat. 4943 (1992). We are, therefore, updating the citation for preventive health services, in the definition of medical services under § 17.30(a)(1) to correctly cite section 1701(9).

Also, § 17.30(a)(3) reads that the entitlement information for transportation and incidental expenses is located at § 17.143. Section 17.143 was marked as reserved on June 30, 2008, and the content was moved to § 70.10. 73 FR 36798. We are amending § 17.30(a)(3) to provide the correct reference to § 70.10.

Paragraph (b) of § 17.30 defines “domiciliary care” as “the furnishing of a home to a veteran, embracing the furnishing of shelter, food, clothing and other comforts of home, including necessary medical services. The term further includes travel and incidental expenses pursuant to § 17.143.” Section 17.143 was marked as reserved on June 30, 2008. 73 FR 36798. The content of § 17.143 was moved to a new 38 CFR part 70 as § 70.10. We are replacing the reference to § 17.143 with the correct reference to § 70.10.

Paragraph (c) of § 17.43 was originally added as paragraph (d) of § 17.46 on May 4, 1967. 32 FR 6841. The paragraph stated that hospital care may be provided “pursuant to a sharing agreement entered into under § 17.210.” Section 17.210, Sharing specialized medical resources, was established in the same regulatory action. On May 13, 1996, VA redesignated § 17.46 as § 17.43, and § 17.210 as § 17.240. 61 FR 21964. However, VA did not update § 17.43(c) to reflect the new citation for § 17.240. We are replacing the reference to § 17.210 in § 17.43 with the correct CFR reference, § 17.240.

Paragraph (d) of § 17.43 cross-references § 17.101 as the regulation containing information regarding charges for authorized services. However, on April 27, 1999, VA renumbered § 17.101 as § 17.102. 64 FR 22676. We are amending § 17.43(d) to correctly cross-reference § 17.102.

Section 17.45 reads that “[s]ubject to the provisions of § 17.62(g), any person who is a bona fide volunteer may be admitted to a Department of Veterans Affairs hospital when the treatment to be rendered is part of an approved Department of Veterans Affairs research project and there are insufficient veteran-patients suitable for the project.” Section 17.62(g) of 38 CFR was renumbered as § 17.101(g) on May 13, 1996. 61 FR 21964. Section § 17.101(g) was then renumbered as § 17.102(g) on April 27, 1999. 64 FR 22676. VA did not update § 17.45 to reflect these changes. We are, therefore, updating § 17.45 to correctly cite § 17.102(g). We are also eliminating the words “the provisions of” from the phrase “[s]ubject to the provisions of § 17.102(g)” because these words do not add meaning to the sentence.

Paragraph (b)(1) of § 17.47 references § 3.800 for cases involving disability or death due to hospitalization under 38 U.S.C. 1151. At the time that § 17.47 was written, § 3.800 was the correct reference for cases involving disability or death due to hospitalization under 38 U.S.C. 1151. Section 3.800 applies to claims received before October 1, 1997. However, section 422(a) of Public Law 104-204 created the authority for claims received by VA on or after October 1, 1997, which VA codified as § 3.362. 63 FR 45004, Aug. 24, 1998; Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1997, Sec. 422(a), Public Law 104-204, 110 Stat. 2926-2927 (1996). We are amending § 17.47(b)(1) to correctly reflect the cross-reference of § 3.362 and § 3.362(b), as appropriate.

Section 17.47(d)(3) incorrectly cites 38 U.S.C. 1111(a) as the authority for the maximum rates of pension. When § 17.48(d)(3), the precursor to § 17.47(d)(3), was promulgated, we inadvertently referenced 38 U.S.C. 311(a), the precursor of 38 U.S.C. 1111(a), as the authority for the maximum rates of pension. 51 FR 25065. When section 311 was renumbered as section 1111, we revised § 17.47(d)(3) to reflect the change. 57 FR 31015. However, the original citation should have been to 38 U.S.C. 3112, not 311(a). Section 3112 has since been renumbered as 38 U.S.C. 5312. Department of Veterans Affairs Health-Care Personnel Act of 1991, Sec. 402, Public Law 102-40, 105 Stat. 187 (1991). We are updating § 17.47(d)(3) to reflect the correct cross-reference of 38 U.S.C. 5312(a).

Prior to the enactment of the Veterans' Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 1996 (Act of 1996), Sec. 101, Public Law 104-262, 110 Stat. 3177, 38 U.S.C. 1712 served as the statutory authority for VA to provide outpatient and ambulatory care. This authority was moved by the Act of 1996 from 38 U.S.C. 1712 to 38 U.S.C. 1710. Section 1712 currently addresses dental care, drugs and medicines for certain disabled veterans, and vaccines. Section 1710 addresses eligibility for hospital, nursing home and domiciliary care.

Paragraph (f) of § 17.47 cites 38 U.S.C. 1710(a)(2) as the authority for nursing home care and section 1712(a)(4) as the authority for outpatient care. The language of section 1710(a)(2) was revised and redesignated as 1710(a)(3) by the Act of 1996, and 38 U.S.C. 1712(a)(4) refers to a contract dental care reporting requirement. Therefore, we are amending paragraph (f) to correctly reference 38 U.S.C. 1710(a)(3) instead of 38 U.S.C. 1710(a)(2) and 1712(a)(4) and to eliminate the reference to 38 U.S.C. 1712(a)(4).

Paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of § 17.47 cite paragraphs (e), (f), (h), (i), (j), and (k) of § 17.60 as the provisions that govern outpatient medical services. Section 17.60 was amended on May 15, 1990. 55 FR 20150. As amended, § 17.60 did not include paragraphs (h), (i), (j), or (k) and new paragraphs (e) and (f) did not contain the same information as the previous paragraphs (e) and (f). On May 13, 1996, § 17.60 was renumbered as § 17.93. 61 FR 21965. We are correcting §§ 17.47(g)(1) and (g)(2) to cross-reference § 17.93.

The authority citation at the end of § 17.48 is 38 U.S.C. 1772. However, section 5(a) of Public Law 107-95 renumbered 38 U.S.C. 1772 as 38 U.S.C. 2032. Homeless Veterans Comprehensive Assistance Act of 2001, Sec. 5(a), Public Law 107-95, 115 Stat. 903 (2001). We are updating the authority citation in § 17.48 to reflect this change.

Current § 17.50 cross-references §§ 17.46b, 17.47, 17.47(b)(2), and 17.47(c)(2). On July 10, 1986, VA amended § 17.47(c) by redesignating paragraph (c)(3) as (e)(1) and paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) became new paragraph (c). 51 FR 25064. On May 13, 1996, VA redesignated § 17.46b as § 17.44. 61 FR 21965. VA also removed paragraphs (a), (c), and (d) from § 17.47, and paragraphs (b) and (e) of § 17.47 became paragraphs (a) and (b) of § 17.46. VA amended § 17.50 to correctly cross-reference § 17.44 but did not update the cross-references to § 17.46 or § 17.47. We are correcting this oversight by amending the third sentence of § 17.50 to read, “Care in a Federal facility not operated by VA, however, shall not be authorized for any military retiree whose sole basis for eligibility is under § 17.44, or, except in Alaska and Hawaii, for any retiree of the uniformed services suffering from a chronic disability whose entitlement is under § 17.44 or § 17.46(a)(2) regardless of whether he or she may have dual eligibility under other provisions of § 17.46.” We also amend § 17.50 to use VA instead of Department of Veterans Affairs, which is the modern trend in our regulations.

Paragraph (a)(1)(v) of § 17.52 reads that non-VA care will be authorized “[f]or any disability of a veteran participating in a rehabilitation program under 38 U.S.C. ch. 31 and when there is a need for hospital care or medical services for any of the reasons enumerated in § 17.48(j).” Section 17.48 was redesignated as § 17.47 on May 13, 1996. 61 FR 21966. Paragraph (j) of § 17.47 was redesignated as § 17.47(i) on October 6, 1999. 64 FR 54218. However, § 17.52 has not been amended to reflect these changes. We are removing the reference to § 17.48(j) and replacing it with § 17.47(i).

Also, § 17.52(b)(2) references § 17.48(e), but we have eliminated paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of § 17.48. See 61 FR 21966. The information contained in former § 17.48(e)(1) through (5) is found in 38 U.S.C. 1710. For this reason, we are removing the reference to § 17.48(e) and citing to 38 U.S.C. 1710 instead.

Paragraph (b) of § 17.57 reads, “To the extent that resources are available and are not otherwise required to assure that VA can furnish needed care and treatment to veterans described in 38 U.S.C. 1710(a)(1), the Under Secretary for Health may furnish care under this paragraph to any veteran described in 38 U.S.C. 1710(a)(2) if the veteran agrees to pay the United States an amount as determined in 38 U.S.C. 1710(f).” Among other things, the Act of 1996 amended 38 U.S.C. 1710 by revising the language of subsection (a)(1) and redesignating it as (a)(1) and (2). The Act of 1996 also revised subsection (a)(2) and redesignated it as subsection (a)(3). Accordingly, we are amending paragraph (b) of § 17.57 by replacing 38 U.S.C. 1710(a)(1) with 38 U.S.C. 1710(a)(1) and (2), and by replacing 38 U.S.C. 1710(a)(2) with 38 U.S.C. 1710(a)(3).

Paragraph (a) of § 17.90 cross-references § 17.47(j) for the definition of “participating in a rehabilitation program under 38 U.S.C. chapter 31.” On October 6, 1999, VA redesignated paragraph (j) of § 17.47 as paragraph (i). 64 FR 54218. However, § 17.90(a) was not updated to reflect this amendment. We are amending § 17.90(a) to correctly cross-reference § 17.47(i).

The authority citation after § 17.93(a) is 38 U.S.C. 1712. However, as previously stated in this rulemaking, the statute that covers outpatient services is now 1710. We are adding 1710 to the authority citation after § 17.93(a).

Current paragraph (b) of § 17.93 defines the term “shall furnish” as used in this section and 38 U.S.C. 1712(a)(1) and (2). Because § 17.93 regulates eligibility for outpatient services, sections 1712(a)(1) and (2) are no longer the correct authority for this discussion. We are amending paragraph (b) by replacing 38 U.S.C. 1712(a)(1) and (2) with the correct reference, which is 38 U.S.C. 1710(a)(1) and (2).

Paragraph (c)(1) of § 17.93 cross-references § 17.47(j) for the definition of “participating in a rehabilitation program under 38 U.S.C. chapter 31.” On October 6, 1999, VA redesignated paragraph (j) of § 17.47 as paragraph (i). 64 FR 54218. However, § 17.93(c)(1) was not updated to reflect this amendment. We are amending § 17.93(c)(1) to correctly cross-reference § 17.47(i).

The authority citation at the end of current § 17.93 is 38 U.S.C. 1717. Section 17.60, the precursor to § 17.93, was published on May, 15, 1990, and it included a paragraph (f), which addressed home health services and for which the authority was section 617, the precursor to section 1717. 55 FR 20151. However, paragraph (f) was deleted on May 13, 1996, making 38 U.S.C. 1717 an incorrect authority for § 17.93. 61 FR 21965. We are deleting section 1717 from the authority citation of § 17.93 and adding in its place 1710 and 1712.

Current § 17.95 cross-references § 17.101 for charges for care or services in emergencies. As previously stated in this rulemaking, § 17.101 was renumbered to § 17.102 on April 27, 1997. 64 FR 22676. Therefore, we are amending § 17.95 to correctly cross-reference § 17.102.

Section 17.95 cites 38 U.S.C. 1711 as the authority for outpatient medical services for VA employees and others in emergencies. Section 1711 is the precursor to section 611, which was added as the authority on December 30, 1982, when VA published a new paragraph (b) to § 17.60b, the precursor to § 17.95. 47 FR 58249. However, on May 13, 1996, VA redesignated § 17.60b as new § 17.95 and removed the paragraph (b) that was added on December 30, 1982. 61 FR 21965. Because paragraph (b) was removed, 38 U.S.C. 1711 is no longer a correct authority citation for § 17.95. We are amending the authority citation in § 17.95 to cite the correct authority, 38 U.S.C. 1784.

The authority for § 17.96 is currently 38 U.S.C. 1706, 1710, 17.12(d). However, 17.12(d) is not a section within 38 U.S.C. We are amending the authority for § 17.96 to correctly read, 38 U.S.C. 1706, 1710, 1712(d).

Paragraph (a) of § 17.98 reads that “[f]ollowing the death of a veteran, bereavement counseling involving services defined in 38 U.S.C. 1701(6)(B), may be furnished to persons who were receiving mental health services in connection with treatment of the veteran under 38 U.S.C. 1710, 1712, 1712A, 1713, or 1717, or 38 CFR 17.84”. Section 1701(6)(B) of the United States Code was renumbered as section 1783. Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Programs Enhancement Act of 2001, Sec. 208, Public Law 107-135, 115 Stat. 2461 (2002). We are amending § 17.98(a) by replacing 1701(6)(B) with 1783. For this same reason, we are removing 1701(6)(B) as the authority citation for the section and adding 1783 in its place.

The Act of 1996 removed from 38 U.S.C. 1712 the provisions that govern outpatient care. Therefore, it is no longer accurate to state that treatment under section 1712 is covered for purposes of § 17.98. We are removing section 1712 from paragraph (a) of § 17.98, leaving the correct reference to section 1710. Also, 38 U.S.C. 1713 was renumbered as section 1781. Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Programs Enhancement Act of 2001, Sec. 208(c), Public Law 107-135, 115 Stat. 2461 (2002). We are amending § 17.98(a) by replacing section 1713 with section 1781. Section 17.84 was marked as reserved on September 9, 1998. 63 FR 48102. Because it contains no substantive content, we are removing the reference to § 17.84 from § 17.98.

Paragraph (c)(3) of § 17.106 reads, “The remedies authorized for collection of indebtedness due the United States under 31 U.S.C. 3701, et seq., 4 CFR parts 101 through 104, 28 CFR part 11, 31 CFR part 900, and 38 CFR part 1, are available to effect collections under this section.” On November 22, 2000, 4 CFR parts 101 through 104 were removed. 65 FR 70405. We are amending § 17.106(c)(3) by removing the cross-reference to “4 CFR parts 101 through 104.” We are also amending the cross-reference to 31 CFR part 900 to more accurately reflect the pertinent parts within 31 CFR, which are parts 900 through 904.

Section 17.107 of 38 CFR contains a Note at the end of the section that reads, “Note to § 17.106”. On June 24, 2011, 76 FR 37204, VA renumbered § 17.106 as § 17.107, but the Note was not amended to reflect this change. We are amending the Note at the end of § 17.107 to reflect the correct section number.

Paragraph (a) of § 17.142 authorizes the Under Secretary for Health to enter into “[s]haring agreements authorized under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. 8153 and § 17.210 and which may be negotiated pursuant to the provisions of 41 CFR 8-3.204(c)”. Section 17.210 was renumbered as § 17.240 on May 13, 1996. 61 FR 21966. Also, title 41 CFR was reorganized in 1983, eliminating paragraph 8-3.204(c). Title 41 was subsequently amended and § 8-3.204 was removed. We believe that it is sufficient to cite 38 U.S.C. 8153 as the authority for VA contracts. We are amending § 17.142(a) to read, “Sharing agreements authorized under 38 U.S.C. 8153 and § 17.240”.

Paragraph (c) of § 17.142 reads, “Such approval, however, will not be necessary in the case of any purchase order or individual authorization for which authority has been delegated in § 17.99. All such contracts and agreements will be negotiated pursuant to 41 CFR chapters 1 and 8.” The approval referred to in this paragraph is VA's approval of contracts authorized under 38 U.S.C. 513, which allows VA to enter into contracts or agreements with private or public agencies or persons. Although this paragraph (c) states that section 513 is the authority for medical and ancillary services, VA has determined that section 513 may not be used to procure services constituting day-to-day medical care operations. VA's authority for such services is now 38 U.S.C. 8153. We are amending paragraph (c) to cite to 38 U.S.C. 8153. Section 104 of Public Law 104-262 allowed for some categories of veterans to be eligible for VA hospital and outpatient care even if not enrolled in the VA healthcare system. Veterans' Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 1996, Sec. 104, Public Law 104-262, 110 Stat. 3177 (1996). Section 17.37 was promulgated in response to the enactment of the public law, and § 17.99 was removed because it became redundant. 64 FR 54218. However, § 17.37 does not authorize VA to enter into contracts with non-VA facilities. The delegation of authority for purchase orders or individual contracts is found in 48 CFR 801.670-3. Therefore, we are amending § 17.142(c) to correctly cite to 48 CFR 801.670-3. Also, because chapters 1 and 8 of 41 CFR no longer exist, we are amending the last sentence of § 17.142(c) to reflect the current contracting procedures for health-care resources, which are 48 CFR chapters 1 and 8. We are also removing 38 U.S.C. 513 as the authority for § 17.142 because VA's authority for contract medical and ancillary services is now 38 U.S.C. 8153, which is already cited as an authority to this section.

Paragraph (a) of § 17.150 references 38 U.S.C. 1712 as the authority for providing appliances or repairs as part of outpatient care. As previously stated in this rulemaking, the correct statutory authority for outpatient care is section 1710. We are removing the reference to section 1712 from paragraph (a) and replacing it with a reference to section 1710.

Paragraph (b)(4) of § 17.150 cross-references § 17.48(f) for the authorization of the treatment of nonservice-connected disabilities. Section 17.48(f) was renumbered several times as follows: As § 17.48(i) on July 10, 1986, 51 FR 25061; as § 17.47(i) on May 13, 1996, 61 FR 21966; and, finally, as § 17.47(h) on October 6, 1999, 64 FR 54218. We are amending § 17.150(b)(4) to correctly cross-reference § 17.47(h).

The authority citation for § 17.152 is 38 U.S.C. 3902. Section 3902 is the authority for assistance for providing automobiles and adaptive equipment for automobiles. The correct authority citation for § 17.152 is 38 U.S.C. 1717(c), Home health services; invalid lifts and other devices. We are amending § 17.152 to correct the authority citation to 38 U.S.C. 1717(c).

Paragraph (h) of § 17.160 reads, “Persons defined in § 17.60(d).” On May 13, 1996, § 17.60 was renumbered as § 17.93. 61 FR 21965. We are amending § 17.160(h) to correctly cross-reference § 17.93.

The authority citation after paragraph (e) of § 17.161 cites 38 U.S.C. 1712(b)(1)(F). On October 9, 1996, 38 U.S.C. 1712(b)(1)(F) was redesignated as 1712(a)(1)(F). Veterans' Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 1996, Sec. 101(c)(1), Public Law 104-262, 110 Stat. 3177 (1996). We are amending the authority citation after § 17.161(e) to correctly read, 38 U.S.C. 1712(a)(1)(F).

The authority citation for § 17.163 is 38 U.S.C. 1712(b)(5). On January 31, 1980, the authority citation for § 17.123b, the precursor to § 17.163, was 38 U.S.C. 612(b)(5). 45 FR 6939. However, section 103(a) of Public Law 97-72 amended 38 U.S.C. 612 by redesignating section 612(b)(5) as 612(b)(1)(E), which later became 38 U.S.C. 1712(b)(1)(E), on August 6, 1991. Veterans' Health Care, Training, and Small Business Loan Act of 1981, Sec. 103(a), Public Law 97-72, 95 Stat. 1047; Department of Veterans Affairs Codification Act, Sec. 5, Public Law 102-83, 105 Stat. 378 (1991). Also, on October 9, 1996, 38 U.S.C. 1712(b)(1)(E) was redesignated as 1712(a)(1)(E). Veterans' Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 1996, Sec. 101(c)(1), Public Law 104-262, 110 Stat. 3177 (1996). Although the authority citation was amended to 38 U.S.C. 1712, the correct citation is 1712(a)(1)(E) and not 1712(b)(5). Accordingly, we are amending the authority citation of § 17.163 to correctly refer to 38 U.S.C. 1712(a)(1)(E).

Paragraph (b) of § 17.180 cross-references 38 U.S.C. chapter 75 for the statutes that address the Veterans Canteen Service. On May 7, 1991, section 402(a) of Public Law 102-40 redesignated chapter 75 of 38 U.S.C. as chapter 78. Department of Veterans Affairs Health-Care Personnel Act of 1991, Sec. 402(a), Public Law 102-40, 105 Stat. 187 (1991). We are amending § 17.180(b) to correctly cite 38 U.S.C. chapter 78.

Current § 17.197 cross-references 38 U.S.C. 1741(a)(1) as the authority for the per diem rates for domiciliary care, and 38 U.S.C. 1741(a)(3) as the authority for the per diem rates for hospital care. On May 20, 1988, section 134 of Public Law 100-322 amended subsection (a) of 38 U.S.C. 641, the precursor of 38 U.S.C. 1741, by removing paragraphs (1) through (3) and adding new paragraphs (1) and (2). Veterans Benefits and Services Act of 1988, Sec. 134, Public 100-322, 102 Stat. 487 (1988). Also, on October 9, 1996, section 342 of Public Law 104-262 redesignated subsections (a)(1) and (2) of 1741 as subsections (a)(1)(A) and (B). Veterans' Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 1996, Sec. 342, Public Law 104-262, 110 Stat. 3177 (1996). We are amending § 17.197 to state the correct authority for the per diem rates for domiciliary care as 38 U.S.C. 1741(a)(1)(A), and the authority for the per diem rates for hospital care as 38 U.S.C. 1741(a)(1)(B).

The second sentence of § 17.230(b) cites 38 U.S.C. 1712(f) and (g) as the authority for veterans receiving outpatient care. However, 38 U.S.C. 1712(g) was repealed by section 101(e)(2)(B) of Public Law 100-322. Veterans Benefits and Services Act of 1998, Sec. 101(e)(2)(B), Public Law 100-322, 102 Stat. 487 (1988). Also, section 1712(f) was transferred to 38 U.S.C. 1710(g) by section 101 of Public Law 104-262. Veterans' Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 1996, Sec. 101, Public Law 104-262, 110 Stat. 3177 (1996). We are, therefore, amending paragraph (b) of § 17.230 by removing 38 U.S.C. 1712(g) and replacing 38 U.S.C. 1712(f) with 38 U.S.C. 1710(g).

On October 9, 1996, section 301(c)(1)(A) of Public Law 104-262 amended 38 U.S.C. 8153 by substituting “health-care resources” for “certain specialized medical resources;” “other health-care resources” for “other medical resources;” and “of health-care resources between Department health-care facilities and any health-care provider, or other entity or individual” for a listing of the different health care facilities. Veterans' Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 1996, Sec. 301(c)(1)(A), Public Law 104-262, 110 Stat. 3177 (1996). However, VA did not update § 17.240 to conform with the amendments to the public law. We are now amending the title in § 17.240 from “Sharing specialized medical resources” to “Sharing health-care resources.” We are also removing the term “specialized medical” where it appears in § 17.240 and adding, in its place, “health-care.” Lastly, we are removing “with other hospitals, including State or local, public or private hospitals or other medical installations having hospital facilities or organ banks, blood banks, or similar institutions, or medical schools or clinics in a medical community” from the introductory paragraph in § 17.240 and adding, in its place “between Department health-care facilities and any health-care provider, or other entity or individual.”

Paragraph (c) of § 17.255 cross-references 40 U.S.C. 276a through 276a-5, The Davis-Bacon Act, as the statute that deals with local wage rates for laborers and mechanics engaged in construction activities. The Davis-Bacon Act, which was originally codified as 40 U.S.C. 276a to 276a-5, was repealed and reenacted as sections 3141-3144, 3146, and 3147, codifying Title 40, United States Code-Public Buildings, Property, and Works, Sec. 1, 6(b), Public Law 107-217, 116 Stat. 1062 (2002). We are amending § 17.255 to cross-reference 40 U.S.C. 3141-3144, 3146, and 3147. We are also eliminating the reference to the term “the Davis-Bacon Act” at the end of paragraph (c).

The current authority citation for § 17.277 includes 28 U.S.C. 2651. However, section 2651 is not a section under title 28 U.S.C. The correct reference should be to section 2651 of title 42. We are amending the authority citation for § 17.277 to correctly cite 42 U.S.C. 2651.

The last sentence of paragraph (a) of § 17.509 reads, “The procedures outlined in 38 CFR 1.500 through 1.584 will be followed where applicable.” On June 7, 1996, VA removed, and marked as reserved, §§ 1.558, 1.559, 1.578, 1.581, 1.583, and 1.584. 61 FR 29023. These sections were removed because they were duplicative of language from the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a. We are amending § 17.509 to correctly cross-reference the procedures outlined in 38 U.S.C. 5701, 5 U.S.C. 552 and 552a, and 38 CFR 1.500 through 1.582.

The authority citation for § 17.608(a) is 38 U.S.C. 7616(a)(A)(i). However, section 7616 does not contain a subsection (a)(A)(i). On July 7, 1989, VA cited section 4316(a)(A)(i) as the authority for § 17.608(a). 54 FR 28675. However, the citation should have been 4316(b)(3)(A)(i). Veterans Benefits and Services Act of 1988, Sec. 216, Public Law 100-322, 102 Stat. 487 (1988). That section was later renumbered as 38 U.S.C. 7616. Department of Veterans Affairs Health-Care Personnel Act of 1991, Sec. 402, Public Law 102-40, 105 Stat. 187 (1991). Therefore, we are correcting the authority citation after paragraph (a) of § 17.608 to correctly cite 38 U.S.C. 7616(b)(3)(A)(i).

The first sentence of § 17.609 cross-references 38 U.S.C. 7404(b)(1). Subsection (b)(1) of section 7404 was removed on December 3, 2004. Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Personnel Enhancement Act of 2004, Sec. 3(a), Public Law 108-445, 118 Stat. 2636 (2004). We are revising the first sentence of § 17.609 to correctly cross-reference 38 U.S.C. 7404(b).

The authority citation for § 17.609 cites Public Law 96-330, section 202 and 38 U.S.C. 7431-7440. We are removing the reference to Public Law 96-330, section 202 because it is no longer the authorizing statute for the Health Professional Scholarship Program. See Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010, Sec. 603, Public Law 111-163, 124 Stat. 1173 (2010). We are also eliminating 38 U.S.C. 7434 through 7440 from the authority citation. These sections were removed on December 3, 2004, by the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Personnel Enhancement Act of 2004. Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Personnel Enhancement Act of 2004, Sec. 3(b), Public Law 108-445, 118 Stat. 2636 (2004). We are amending the authority citation to correctly cite 38 U.S.C. 7431 through 7433.

Section 17.900 defines the term “child for purposes of spina bifida” to mean “the same as individual as defined at § 3.814(c)(2) or § 3.815(c)(2) of this title and for purposes of covered birth defects means the same as individual as defined at § 3.815(c)(2) of this title.” On January 25, 2011, VA redesignated paragraph § 3.814(c)(2) as paragraph (c)(3). 76 FR 4249. We are amending the definition of the term “child” in § 17.900 to correctly cross-reference the definition of “individual” in § 3.814(c)(3).

The current authority for 38 CFR part 43 is “38 U.S.C. 501, 1712.” The Act of 1996 removed the statutory authority for outpatient care from 38 U.S.C. 1712. Outpatient care is now covered under 38 U.S.C. 1710. However, the statutory authority for part 43 is not 38 U.S.C. 1710. Part 43 of 38 CFR outlines the procedures for grants and cooperative agreements to state and local governments, not eligibility for VA care. VA's authority to prescribe regulations to carry out the laws administered by VA is 38 U.S.C. 501. We rely on this general authority for all of part 43 and, where applicable, state specific sections that have an additional authority. We are, therefore, amending the authority citation for part 43 to read “38 U.S.C. 501, and as noted in specific sections.”

This final rule will not amend the substantive content of the regulations cited. We are merely providing technical revisions to update outdated statutory references and statutory authorities. We are also updating outdated CFR references. Accordingly, notice-and-comment procedures are not necessary for this rulemaking, and we find good cause to make these changes effective immediately. Consequently, this rule is exempt from the notice-and-comment and delayed-effective-date requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553.

Title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as revised by this final rulemaking, represents VA's implementation of its legal authority on this subject. Other than future amendments to this regulation or governing statutes, no contrary rules or procedures are authorized. All existing or subsequent VA guidance must be read to conform with this rulemaking if possible or, if not possible, such guidance is superseded by this rulemaking.

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

The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This final rule directly affects only individuals and will not directly affect small entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.

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

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

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any 1 year. This final rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program numbers and titles for this rule are as follows: 64.005, Grants to States for Construction of State Home Facilities; 64.007, Blind Rehabilitation Centers; 64.008, Veterans Domiciliary Care; 64.009, Veterans Medical Care Benefits; 64.010, Veterans Nursing Home Care; 64.014, Veterans State Domiciliary Care; 64.015, Veterans State Nursing Home Care; 64.018, Sharing Specialized Medical Resources; 64.019, Veterans Rehabilitation Alcohol and Drug Dependence; 64.022, Veterans Home Based Primary Care; and 64.024, VA Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program.

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Jose D. Riojas, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on September 2, 2014, for publication.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, we amend 38 CFR parts 17 and 43 as follows:

Under CAA section 110(a)(1), states are required to submit plans called state implementation plans (SIPs) that provide for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of each NAAQS and are referred to as infrastructure SIPs. 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(1). On February 9, 2010, EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for NO 2 (2010 NO 2 NAAQS) while retaining the annual primary NAAQS for NO 2 (75 FR 6474). Under CAA section 110(a)(2), the 14 elements required to be addressed in infrastructure SIPs are as follows: (1) Emission limits and other control measures; (2) ambient air quality monitoring/data system; (3) program for enforcement of control measures; (4) interstate transport; (5) adequate resources; (6) stationary source monitoring system; (7) emergency power; (8) future SIP revisions; (9) consultation with government officials; (10) public notification; (11) prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and visibility protection; (12) air quality modeling/data; (13) permitting fees; and (14) consultation/participation by affected local entities.

EPA is acting on New York's SIP submittal dated May 8, 2013, as supplemented on May 23, 2013, which addresses the section 110 infrastructure requirements for the 2010 NO 2 NAAQS. Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by the three year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area controls are not due within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but rather due at the time that the nonattainment area plan requirements are due pursuant to CAA section 191. (See also CAA section 172 for general nonattainment plan requirements). These requirements are: (1) Submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that subsection refers to a permit program as required in part D Title I of the CAA, and (2) submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA. As a result, this action does not address the nonattainment area plan requirements related to section 110(a)(2)(C) or 110(a)(2)(I).

EPA received one anonymous adverse comment on the May 2, 2014 (79 FR 25066) rulemaking proposing to approve New York's SIP submittal. EPA has evaluated the comment as discussed below and has determined that New York's SIP revision addressing the 2010 NO 2 NAAQS is consistent with the CAA and therefore EPA is approving New York's SIP revision into the New York SIP. Following is the comment and EPA's response.

Comment: The commenter states that EPA cannot approve New York's interstate transport provision addressed in its 2010 NO 2 NAAQS infrastructure SIP revision because, according to the commenter, the Supreme Court decision in EME Homer City v. EPA “requires SIPs to `contain adequate provisions prohibiting any source or emissions activity within the State from emitting ANY pollutants in amounts which will contribute to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other State with respect to any other State with respect to ANY [NAAQS].' (emphasis on `any').” The commenter also quotes from EPA's May 2, 2014 rulemaking which proposes to approve New York's 2010 NO 2 infrastructure SIP revision and states that NO X is a precursor for ozone and PM 2.5 and that NO 2 is a component of NO X. The commenter states that because of the aforementioned Supreme Court decision, EPA must evaluate New York's 2010 NO 2 infrastructure SIP revision submission, as it relates to interstate transport, with respect to all NAAQS and not just for the 2010 NO 2 NAAQS.

Response: This comment addresses the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This provision, often referred to as the good neighbor provision, requires each State Implementation Plan to prohibit “any source or other type of emissions activity within the State from emitting any air pollutants in amounts which will . . . contribute significantly to nonattainment in or interfere with maintenance by, any other state with respect to any . . . primary or secondary [NAAQS].” 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(D)(i). The recent Supreme Court decision in Environmental Protection Agency v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014), addressed the requirements of this provision and reversed the prior DC Circuit decision vacating EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. The commenter quotes from the section of the Supreme Court decision that discusses the historical development (from 1963 onward) of EPA's interstate transport policy (also referred to as the `Good Neighbor' Provision). The quoted language essentially tracks the statutory text of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which describes specific elements that must be included in State Implementation Plans to address pollution that is transported across state lines. As the Supreme Court decision in EME Homer City confirmed, pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(1), state plans to address these requirements must be submitted to the Administrator within three years of the promulgation or revision of a NAAQS. EME Homer City, 134 S. Ct. at 1600.

EPA interprets the comment as stating that the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) provisions of New York's 2010 NO 2 infrastructure SIP should address, in addition to emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NO 2 NAAQS, any emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of all other NAAQS, particularly the NAAQS for ozone and PM 2.5 since NO 2 is a component of NO X and NO X is a precursor for ozone and PM 2.5 . EPA disagrees. Because it is the promulgation or revision of a NAAQS that triggers the requirement to submit a SIP addressing the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), EPA interprets the CAA as requiring each such SIP to address the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements only with respect to the specific NAAQS at issue. In other words, each 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submission need only address the specific NAAQS which had been promulgated or revised by EPA thereby triggering the SIP submission requirement. Because New York submitted this SIP to address the applicable requirements of 110(a)(2) with respect to the 2010 NO 2 NAAQS, it need only demonstrate that the SIP is adequate to prohibit emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 NO 2 NAAQS in other states. Any emissions that have such impacts with respect to other NAAQS must be addressed as appropriate in the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submissions for those other NAAQS. In its May 8, 2013 action, EPA proposed to conclude that New York's May 8, 2013 infrastructure SIP revision, as supplemented on May 23, 2013, addressed all applicable CAA infrastructure SIP requirements, including the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), with respect to the NO 2 NAAQS. 79 FR 25066, 25071-25073. The commenter has offered no data or evidence to suggest that the submission does not do so.

With respect to Elements C and J, EPA interprets the Clean Air Act to require each state to make an infrastructure SIP submission for a new or revised NAAQS that demonstrates that the air agency has a complete PSD permitting program meeting the current requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants. The requirements of Element D(i)(II) may also be satisfied by demonstrating the air agency has a complete PSD permitting program correctly addressing all regulated NSR pollutants. New York has shown that it currently has a PSD program in place that covers all regulated NSR pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHGs).

On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision addressing the application of PSD permitting requirements to GHG emissions. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, 134 S.Ct. 2427. The Supreme Court said that the EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source is a major source required to obtain a PSD permit. The Court also said that the EPA could continue to require that PSD permits, otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs, contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of Best Available Control Technology (BACT). In order to act consistently with its understanding of the Court's decision pending further judicial action to effectuate the decision, the EPA is not continuing to apply EPA regulations that would require that SIPs include permitting requirements that the Supreme Court found impermissible. Specifically, EPA is not applying the requirement that a state's SIP-approved PSD program require that sources obtain PSD permits when GHGs are the only pollutant (i) that the source emits or has the potential to emit above the major source thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a significant emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase from a modification ( e.g. 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v)). EPA anticipates a need to revise federal PSD rules in light of the Supreme Court opinion. In addition, EPA anticipates that many states will revise their existing SIP-approved PSD programs in light of the Supreme Court's decision. The timing and content of subsequent EPA actions with respect to the EPA regulations and state PSD program approvals are expected to be informed by additional legal process before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia Circuit. At this juncture, EPA is not expecting states to have revised their PSD programs for purposes of infrastructure SIP submissions and is only evaluating such submissions to assure that the state's program correctly addresses GHGs consistent with the Supreme Court's decision.

At present, EPA has determined the New York SIP is sufficient to satisfy Elements C, D(i)(II), and J with respect to GHGs because the PSD permitting program previously-approved by EPA into the SIP continues to require that PSD permits (otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs) contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of BACT. Although the approved New York PSD permitting program may currently contain provisions that are no longer necessary in light of the Supreme Court decision, this does not render the infrastructure SIP submission inadequate to satisfy Elements C, D(i)(II), and J. The SIP contains the necessary PSD requirements at this time, and the application of those requirements is not impeded by the presence of other previously-approved provisions regarding the permitting of sources of GHGs that EPA does not consider necessary at this time in light of the Supreme Court decision. Accordingly, the Supreme Court decision does not affect EPA's proposed approval of New York's infrastructure SIP as to the requirements of Elements C, D(i)(II), and J.

EPA is approving New York's submittal as fully meeting the applicable infrastructure requirements for the 2010 primary NO 2 NAAQS for the following section 110(a)(2) elements: (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M).

As stated above, this action does not address the nonattainment area plan requirements related to sections 110(a)(2)(C) or 110(a)(2)(I). EPA will act on them when they become due and are submitted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 November 12, 2014. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

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

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

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0712 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before November 12, 2014. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0712, by one of the following methods:

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

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

• Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

In the Federal Register of December 30, 2013 (78 FR 79359) (FRL-9903-69), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 3E8202) by IR-4, 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.498 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide sulfentrazone, ( N -[2,4-dichloro-5-[4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-1 H -1,2,4-triazol-1-yl]phenyl]methanesulfonamide), and its metabolite HMS ( N -(2,4-dichloro-5-(4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-3- hydroxymethyl-5-oxo-1 H -1,2,4-triazol-1-yl)phenyl)methanesulfonamide, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of sulfentrazone, in or on apple at 0.15 parts per million (ppm). That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared on behalf of IR-4 by FMC Corporation, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. Comments were received on the notice of filing. EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit IV.C.

Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has determined that it is appropriate to establish the tolerance in or on apple for the combined residues of the free and conjugated forms of the herbicide sulfentrazone, and its metabolites HMS ( N -(2,4-dichloro-5-(4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-hydroxymethyl-5-oxo-1 H -1,2,4-triazol-1-yl)phenyl)methanesulfonamide) and DMS ( N -(2,4-dichloro-5-(4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-5-oxo-1 H -1,2,4-triazol-1-yl)phenyl)methanesulfonamide, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of sulfentrazone. The reason for this decision is discussed in Unit IV.D.

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

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

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

Subchronic and chronic toxicity studies in rats, mice, and dogs identified the hematopoietic system as the target of sulfentrazone. Sulfentrazone inhibits the enzyme protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO) in target plants, and the results of subchronic and chronic toxicity studies in mammalian systems are consistent with PPO inhibition. Disruption of heme biosynthesis was indicated by signs of anemia, and decreases in hematocrit (Hct), hemoglobin (HGB), and mean corpuscular volume (MCV) in mice, rats, and dogs at comparable dose levels from short- through long-term exposures without a significant increase in severity.

Sulfentrazone caused developmental effects when administered via the oral (rats and rabbits) and dermal (rat only) routes of exposure. Developmental effects in rats and rabbits consisted of reductions in the number of implantations in rats, and increases in early resorptions and reduction in live fetuses per litter in rats and rabbits. Surviving rat fetuses exhibited reduced/delayed skeletal ossifications, and decreased fetal body weights. Developmental effects in rats were seen in the absence of maternal toxicity. In contrast with the rat studies, developmental effects in rabbits were observed at a maternally toxic dose, where clinical signs of toxicity included hematuria (red blood cells in urine), abortions, and decreased body-weight gains. In the 2-generation reproductive toxicity study in rats, developmental effects included an increased duration of gestation, reduced prenatal viability (fetal and litter), reduced litter size, and an increased number of stillborn pups. Pup body-weight deficits, along with reduced pup and litter postnatal survival, were also observed. All of the offspring effects were reported in the presence of mild maternal toxicity (decreased body weight and body-weight gain, particularly in F 1 females). No systemic toxicity was seen via the dermal route up to the limit dose in a 28-day dermal toxicity study in adult non-pregnant rabbits. In a dermal developmental study in rats, there was an increased quantitative fetal susceptibility. While no maternal effects were observed up to the highest dose tested, fetal effects were observed at this dose, and consisted of decreased body weights, increased incidences of fetal variations, hypoplastic or wavy ribs, incompletely ossified lumbar vertebral arches, incompletely ossified ischia or pubis, and a reduced number of thoracic vertebral and rib ossification sites.

In the 26-day inhalation toxicity study, effects that were considered treatment related and adverse effects occurred only at the highest concentration tested. Systemic effects at this concentration consisted of significant reductions in red blood cell (RBC) parameters including RBC count, HGB concentrations, Hct, MCV, mean corpuscular HGB (MCH), and/or reticulocytes in both sexes. Portal-of-entry effects in this study consisted of an increased incidence of minimal nasal respiratory epithelial hyperplasia in both sexes as well as minimal laryngeal epithelial attenuation in all test material exposure groups. The effects on hematological parameters were reversible after 28 days of recovery, while the nasal injury persisted.

In an acute neurotoxicity (ACN) study in rats, effects consisted of an increased incidence of clinical signs of toxicity (staggered gait, splayed hind limbs, and abdominal gripping), changes in functional-observation battery (FOB) parameters, and decreased motor activity at a high dose level. Complete recovery was observed by day 14, and there was no evidence of neuropathology. In a rat subchronic neurotoxicity (SCN) study, clinical signs of toxicity, increased motor activity, and/or decreased body weights, body-weight gain, and food consumption were also observed with no evidence of neuropathology. A published, non-guideline developmental toxicity study in the rat did not conclusively demonstrate developmental neurotoxicity and contained several shortcomings that limit its use for regulatory purposes, including the lack of a no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) (DeCastro VL, Destefani CR, Diniz C, Poli P., 2007, Evaluation of neurodevelopmental effects on rats exposed prenatally to sulfentrazone. Neurotoxicology 28(6):1249-59). The reported effects involving measures of physical and reflex development are likely secondary effects reflective of the poor general state of the offspring as reported in the rat 2-generation reproductive toxicity study at similar dose levels but with a well-defined NOAEL.

In the 28-day rat immunotoxicity study, there were no effects on the immune system and systemic effects consisted of reduced body weight, and increased absolute and relative spleen weights at the highest dose tested. Carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice showed no evidence of increased incidence of tumor formation due to treatment with sulfentrazone, and the EPA has classified sulfentrazone as not likely to be carcinogenic to humans. The available mutagenicity studies indicate that sulfentrazone is weakly clastogenic in the in vitro mouse lymphoma assay in the absence of S9 activation. There is no evidence that sulfentrazone is mutagenic in bacterial cells or clastogenic in male or female mice in vivo.

Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by sulfentrazone as well as the NOAEL and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document: “Sulfentrazone—Preliminary Human-Health Risk Assessment for Registration Review and the Risk Assessment for the Section 3 Registration Request for a New Use on Apples” at pp. 44-49 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0712.

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

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

1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to sulfentrazone, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing sulfentrazone tolerances in 40 CFR 180.498. EPA assessed dietary exposures from sulfentrazone in food as follows:

i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. Such effects were identified for sulfentrazone, and EPA performed separate acute risk assessments for females 13 to 49 years old and for the general population, including infants and children, based on different endpoints and acute population adjusted doses (aPADs). In estimating acute dietary exposures, EPA used the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model, Food Consumption Intake Database (DEEM-FCID, ver. 3.16), which incorporates consumption data from United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA; 2003-2008). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level residues, 100 percent crop treated (PCT), and DEEM (ver. 7.81) default processing factors.

ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used DEEM-FCID, ver. 3.16, which incorporated consumption data from the USDA's NHANES/WWEIA; 2003-2008. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level residues, 100 PCT, and DEEM (ver. 7.81) default processing factors.

iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that sulfentrazone does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.

iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the dietary assessment for sulfentrazone. Tolerance level residues and/or 100 PCT were assumed for all food commodities.

2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for sulfentrazone in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of sulfentrazone. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.

Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of sulfentrazone for acute exposures are estimated to be 37.3 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 134 ppb for ground water; and for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 5.3 ppb for surface water and 98 ppb for ground water.

Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 134 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 98 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Sulfentrazone is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Residential home lawns/turf and recreational turf, such as golf courses. EPA assessed residential exposures using the following assumptions: Adults were assessed for potential short-term dermal and inhalation handler exposures from applying sulfentrazone to residential turf/home lawns and for short-term postapplication dermal exposure from contact with treated residential and recreational turf.

Children, ages 11 < 16 years old and 6 < 11 years old, were assessed for postapplication dermal exposure from contact with treated residential and recreational turf (home lawns and golf courses). Children, ages 1 < 2 years old, were assessed for postapplication short-term dermal and incidental oral exposures (hand-to-mouth, object-to-mouth, and episodic ingestion of granules), as well as short- and intermediate-term incidental oral soil ingestion scenarios from contact with residential turf/home lawns.

The recommended adult residential exposure scenario for use in the aggregate assessment reflects short-term dermal exposure from applications to turf via backpack sprayer. The recommended residential exposure scenario for use in the combined short- and intermediate-term aggregate assessment for children ages 1 < 2 years old reflects dermal and hand-to-mouth exposures from postapplication exposure to turf applications. This combination should be considered a protective estimate of children's exposure to pesticides used on turf since the incidental oral scenarios are considered inter-related, likely occurring interspersed amongst each other across time; therefore, combining these scenarios would be overly-conservative because of the conservative nature of each individual assessment. In addition, the only potential intermediate-term exposure is postapplication soil ingestion which is significantly less than short-term hand-to-mouth exposure. Further, this scenario is considered protective of potential post-application exposures to children, ages 6 < 11 and 11 < 16 years old, as children 1-2 years old represent the population subgroup for children with the greatest exposure, and is therefore considered protective of other children population subgroups.

Chronic exposures are not expected and were not assessed. Finally, residential handler and/or postapplication inhalation risk estimates were not combined with dermal or oral risk estimates in the aggregate risk assessment since the toxicological effects in the inhalation toxicological study were portal-of-entry and were different from those seen in the dermal and oral toxicological studies. Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/trac6a05.pdf.

4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” EPA has not found sulfentrazone to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and sulfentrazone does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that sulfentrazone does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor (FQPA SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.

2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is evidence of increased quantitative susceptibility following in utero exposure in the oral and dermal rat developmental toxicity studies. Developmental effects, including decreased fetal body weights and reduced/delayed skeletal ossifications, were observed at doses that were not maternally toxic. In the 2-generation reproduction study in rats, offspring effects such as decreased body weights and decreased litter survival were observed at a slightly maternally toxic dose (slightly decreased body weight gain), indicating possible slightly increased qualitative susceptibility.

3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings:

i. The toxicity database for sulfentrazone is complete.

ii. In the ACN and SCN studies, observed effects included changes in motor activity and FOB parameters, clinical signs, and body-weight decrements. There is low concern for neurotoxicity since:

1. Effects were seen at relatively high doses;

2. Effects occurred in the absence of neuropathology;

3. There is no evidence of neurotoxicity in other available studies in the toxicity database;

4. Effects are well-characterized with clearly established NOAEL/LOAEL values; and

5. The selected PODs are protective of these effects.

iii. There was evidence for increased quantitative susceptibility following oral and dermal exposures in the developmental toxicity studies in rats. Although developmental toxicity was observed at lower doses than maternal toxicity in both studies in the rat, the concern is low based on the following considerations:

1. The toxicology database for assessing pre- and postnatal susceptibility is complete;

2. There are clear NOAELs and LOAELs for the developmental effects observed via both the oral and dermal routes;

3. The PODs used for assessing dietary and dermal exposure risks are based on developmental and/or offspring toxicity;

4. The portal-of-entry effects seen in the 26-day inhalation study are protective of the developmental toxicity; and

5. There are no residual uncertainties for pre- and/or postnatal toxicity.

iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to sulfentrazone in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess postapplication exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by sulfentrazone.

EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.

1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and drinking water. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to sulfentrazone will occupy 6.7% of the aPAD for females 13-49 years old, and 1.1% of the aPAD for all infants less than 1 year old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure for all populations other than females 13-49 years old.

2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to sulfentrazone from food and water will utilize 7.1% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of sulfentrazone is not expected.

3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Sulfentrazone is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term residential exposures to sulfentrazone.

Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in an aggregate MOE of 480 for adults. Because EPA's level of concern for sulfentrazone is a MOE of 100 or below, this MOE is not of concern.

4. Short- and intermediate-term risk. Combined short- and intermediate-term aggregate exposures take into account short- and intermediate-term residential exposures plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Sulfentrazone is currently registered for uses that could result in short- and intermediate-term residential exposures, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short- and intermediate-term residential exposures to sulfentrazone.

Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for combined short- and intermediate-term exposures, EPA has concluded that the combined short- and intermediate-term food, water, and residential exposures result in an aggregate MOE of 260 for children 1-2 years old, the population subgroup for children with the greatest exposure. Because EPA's level of concern for sulfentrazone is a MOE of 100 or below, this MOEs are not of concern.

5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, chemical name is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.

6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to sulfentrazone residues.

Adequate enforcement methodology, gas chromatography (GC), is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address: residuemethods@epa.gov.

In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.

The Codex has not established a MRL for sulfentrazone.

EPA received one comment to the Notice of Filing that made a general objection to the presence of any sulfentrazone residues on apple or any other crop. The Agency understands the commenter's concerns and recognizes that some individuals believe that pesticides should be banned on agricultural crops. However, the existing legal framework provided by section 408 of the FFDCA states that tolerances may be set when persons seeking such tolerances or exemptions have demonstrated that the pesticide meets the safety standard imposed by that statute. This citizen's comment appears to be directed at the underlying statute and not EPA's implementation of it; the citizen has made no contention that EPA has acted in violation of the statutory framework. The Agency has concluded after this assessment, that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate human exposure to sulfentrazone.

EPA was petitioned to establish a tolerance in or on apple for residues of sulfentrazone and its metabolite HMS; however, upon review of the data supporting the petition, the Agency has determined that the apple tolerance should be established on the combined residues of the free and conjugated forms of sulfentrazone, including its metabolites HMS ( N -(2,4-dichloro-5-(4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-hydroxymethyl-5-oxo-1 H -1,2,4-triazol-1-yl)phenyl)methanesulfonamide) and DMS ( N -(2,4-dichloro-5-(4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-5-oxo-1 H -1,2,4-triazol-1-yl)phenyl)methanesulfonamide, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of sulfentrazone. EPA previously reviewed metabolism data and determined that the residues of concern are the parent compound, sulfentrazone, and the metabolites HMS and DMS (free and conjugated) in all crops except soybean seed, where the residues of concern are sulfentrazone and the metabolite HMS. Samples of raw agricultural and processed commodities from the apple studies were analyzed for residues of sulfentrazone and its metabolites DMS and HMS, and EPA is establishing an apple tolerance based upon those analyses.

Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of sulfentrazone, ( N -[2,4-dichloro-5-[4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-1 H -1,2,4-triazol-1-yl]phenyl]methanesulfonamide), and its metabolites HMS ( N -(2,4-dichloro-5-(4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-hydroxymethyl-5-oxo-1 H -1,2,4-triazol-1- yl)phenyl)methanesulfonamide and DMS ( N -(2,4-dichloro-5-(4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-5-oxo-1 H -1,2,4-triazol-1-yl)phenyl)methanesulfonamide, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of sulfentrazone, in or on apple at 0.15 ppm.

This final rule establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), do not apply.

This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition, this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ).

This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

This final rule reflects changes made in Public Law 113-76, Division L, Title I—Department of Transportation, which states, “Notwithstanding section 102 of title 49 and section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, there shall be an Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology within the Office of the Secretary, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, to lead such office: Provided further, that any reference in law, regulation, judicial proceedings, or elsewhere to the Research and Innovative Technology Administration shall be deemed to be a reference to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology of the Department of Transportation.” Accordingly, the Transportation Acquisition Regulation (TAR) has been revised to update references of the Research and Innovative Technology Administration to references of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology. This rule also provides for the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology to have the same authority under TAR as the former Research and Innovative Technology Administrator.

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has determined that changes to TAR are necessary to implement and align it with the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014. These changes are necessary in order to update references to the Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) by replacing them with references to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (OST-R). The changes are also necessary to ensure that the Assistant Secretary of OST-R continues to exercise the same authority under TAR as the Administrator of the former RITA.

This final rule does not impose new substantive requirements. It simply updates the CFR to reflect changes made by other law and represent the current organizational posture of the Department with regard to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology. The final rule is ministerial in nature and relates only to Departmental management, procedure, and practice. Therefore, the Department has determined that notice and comment are unnecessary and that the rule is exempt from prior notice and comment requirements under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). This rule will not have a substantive impact on the public, as it is purely organizational. Therefore, the Department finds that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

The DOT has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (January 18, 2011, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”), and the DOT's regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979). The Department has determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action, and therefore, was not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. There are no costs associated with this rule. The rule updates references to RITA to reflect its elevation into the Office of the Secretary as OST-R.

The Department has analyzed this final rule under the principals and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, dated August 4, 1999, and it has been determined that it does not have a substantial direct effect on, or sufficient federalism implications for, the States, nor would it limit the policymaking discretion of the States. Therefore, the preparation of a Federalism Assessment is not necessary.

Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 5 U.S.C. 601-612) do not apply. Even so, DOT has evaluated the effects of these changes on small entities and does not believe that this rule would impose any costs on small entities as it merely revises and clarifies TAR. Therefore, I hereby certify that this final rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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. ) 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 Department must also consider whether extraordinary circumstances are present that would warrant the preparation of an EA or EIS. Id. Paragraph 3.c.5 of DOT Order 5610.1C incorporates by reference the categorical exclusions for all DOT Operating Administrations. This action is covered by the categorical exclusion listed in the Federal Highway Administration's implementing procedures, “[p]romulgation of rules, regulations, and directives.” 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20). The purpose of this rulemaking is to update TAR regulations to make them consistent with current law and to provide clarifications. The agency does not anticipate any environmental impacts, and there are no extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. The DOT has determined that this action does not contain a collection of information requirement for the purposes of the PRA.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, March 22, 1995) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of certain regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector. The UMRA requires a written statement of economic and regulatory alternatives for proposed and final rules that contain Federal mandates. A “Federal mandate” is a new or additional enforceable duty, imposed on any State, local, or tribal Government, or the private sector. If any Federal mandate causes those entities to spend, in aggregate, $143.1 million or more in any one year (adjusted for inflation), an UMRA analysis is required. This action would not impose Federal mandates on any State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 48 CFR Chapter 12 is amended as follows:

We will refer to Arabis georgiana by its common name, Georgia rockcress, in this rule.

Elsewhere in this Federal Register , we publish the final rule designating critical habitat for the Georgia rockcress under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ).

Please refer to the proposed listing rule for the Georgia rockcress (78 FR 56192, September 12, 2013) for a detailed description of previous Federal actions concerning this species.

Please refer to the proposed listing rule for the Georgia rockcress (78 FR 56192, September 12, 2013) for a summary of species information. The following section contains revisions to the proposed listing rule reflecting comments we received during peer review.

There are two species known to be syntopic (occurring on same site) with Georgia rockcress that are easily misidentified as Georgia rockcress. They are Boechera canadensis and B. laevigata, previously assigned to the genus Arabis (Al-Shehbaz 2003, pp. 381-391). Confusion with the two Boechera taxa could lead to an overestimate of abundance for Georgia rockcress.

Georgia rockcress generally occurs on steep river bluffs often with shallow soils overlaying rock or with exposed rock outcroppings. These edaphic conditions result in micro-disturbances, such as sloughing soils with limited accumulation of leaf litter or canopy gap dynamics, possibly with wind-thrown trees, which provide small patches of exposed mineral soil in a patchy distribution across the river bluff (Schotz 2010, p. 6). While Georgia rockcress needs small-scale disturbances with slightly increased light, limited competition for water, and exposed soils for seed germination, the species is a poor competitor and is easily outcompeted by aggressive competitors (Allison 1995, p. 8; Moffett 2007, p. 4; Schotz 2010, p. 9). Natural large-scale disturbances, such as fire and catastrophic flooding, are unlikely to occur on the steep river bluffs occupied by Georgia rockcress.

Populations of Georgia rockcress are healthiest in areas receiving full or partial sunlight. This species seems to be able to tolerate moderate shading, but it exists primarily as vegetative rosettes in heavily shaded areas (Moffett 2007, p. 4). Those populations occurring in forested areas will decline as the forest canopy closes. Allison (1999, p. 4) attributed the decline of a population in Bibb County, Alabama, to canopy closure. In addition, the small number of individuals at the majority of the sites makes these populations vulnerable to local extinctions from unfavorable habitat conditions such as extreme shading.

Georgia rockcress is rare throughout its range. Moffett (2007, p. 8) found approximately 2,140 plants from all known sites in Georgia. During surveys in 1999, Allison (1999, pp. 1-7) found that populations of this species typically had a limited number of individuals restricted to a small area. Of the nine known localities (six populations) in Georgia, Allison (1995, pp. 18-28) reported that six sites consisted of only 3 to 25 plants, and the remaining three sites had 51 to 63 individuals. However, a 2007 survey by Moffett (2007, p. 8) of the six Georgia populations resulted in counts of 5 or fewer plants at one population; 30 to 50 plants at two populations; 150 plants at one population; and two populations (greatly expanded from 1995) of almost 1,000 plants each. In 2009, plants could not be relocated at one Floyd County, Georgia, site, and only one plant was seen at another site where 25 to 50 had been documented in 2007 (Garcia 2012, p. 76; Elmore 2010, p. 1). Moffett (2007, pp. 1-2) indicated that the overall status of the three populations in the Ridge and Valley ecoregion (Floyd and Gordon Counties, Georgia) was poor, as these populations tended to be small, and declining in size and vigor. The largest population in Georgia is the multi-site Goat Rock Dam complex in the Piedmont province (Harris/Muscogee Counties) with approximately 1,000 flowering stems at last census (Garcia 2012, p. 76; Moffett 2007, p. 2). The Goat Rock Dam population has recently increased by 130 percent, which likely reflects management efforts to control invasive species by Georgia Power and the Georgia Plant Conservation Alliance. Fort Benning also supports a vigorous population with an estimated 1,000 plants (Garcia 2012, p. 76; Moffett 2007, p. 2). Georgia rockcress has been extirpated from its type locality near Omaha, Georgia, in Stuart County (Garcia 2012, p. 76; Moffett 2007, p. 2). At another site, Blacks Bluff, Georgia, rockcress had declined to a few individuals by 2007 (Garcia 2012, p. 76; Moffett 2007, p. 2), but 100 individuals were replanted in 2009. During a count done in 2013, 31 individuals were found to be surviving at the site, and more than 15,000 seeds were broadcast to supplement this population (Goldstrohm 2013, p. 1).

Schotz (2010, p. 8) documented fewer than 3,000 plants from all known sites in Alabama. Populations from Bibb County, Alabama, had between 16 and 229 plants, with 42 and 498 from Dallas County, 47 from Elmore County, 414 from Monroe County, 842 from Russell County, 4 from Sumter County, and 551 from Wilcox County. Allison (1999, pp. 2-4) originally documented this species at 18 localities (representing seven populations) in Bibb County. However, one of these Bibb County populations was not relocated during surveys in 2001 (Allison 2002, pers. comm.), and plants were not relocated at two other sites in Alabama (Schotz 2010, pp. 13, 57). Therefore, it is believed that Georgia rockcress has been extirpated from these three sites in Alabama.

In the proposed rule published on September 12, 2013 (78 FR 56192), we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal by November 12, 2013. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. Newspaper notices inviting general public comment were published in the Atlanta Jounal-Constitution, Columbus Ledger, Montgemenry Advertiser, and Birmingham News. We conducted a public informational session and public hearing in Columbus, Georgia, on May 28, 2014; no public comments were received, and only one individual attended the informational session.

In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion from three knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with Georgia rockcress and its habitat, biological needs, and threats. We received responses from all of the peer reviewers.

We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new information regarding the listing of Georgia rockcress. The peer reviewers generally concurred with our methods and conclusions and provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve the final rule. Peer reviewer comments are addressed in the following summary and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.

Comment: Two peer reviewers suggested that the Service should include several citations, figures, and a table from Garcia (2012).

Our Response: We have incorporated information from Garcia (2012) into this final rule, with citations included, in the Background section, above, and Summary of Biological Status and Threats section, below. Figures and tables will be posted as supplemental information on http://www.regulations.gov.

Both the States of Alabama and Georgia provided editorial comments on our proposed rule; these comments have been incorporated into this final rule as appropriate. The State of Georgia also provided additional detail about conditions on specific sites and recommended we add a brief discussion of two syntopic species, which we include in the Background section, above.

We received four public comments on the proposed listing determination during the public comment periods, and none on record at the public hearing. Only one of those comments was substantive; it is discussed below.

Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the Service had not provided information about why the Georgia rockcress is necessary, useful, or beneficial, and noted that the Service had not determined what the costs of conservation for this species would be or what would happen in a “no action” alternative.

Our Response: When Congress passed the Act in 1973, it found and declared that [America's] “species of fish, wildlife, and plants are of esthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people” (16 U.S.C. 1531(a)(3)). The purpose of the Act is to protect and recover imperiled species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based solely on (A) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in combination. We may not consider other criteria, including the value, use, or benefit associated with a species, in connection with the listing determination.

We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats to Georgia rockcress. Habitat degradation (Factor A) and the subsequent invasion of nonnative species (Factor E) are the most serious threats to this species' continued existence. Disturbance, associated with timber harvesting, road building, and grazing, has created favorable conditions for the invasion of nonnative weeds, especially Japanese honeysuckle, in this species' habitat. Because nearly all populations are currently or potentially threatened by the presence of nonnatives, we find that this species is warranted for listing.

We do not analyze the economic impact of listing a species under the Act; however, an economic analysis is done for the designation of critical habitat and has been completed for this species. It can be found at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0030. No analysis of a “no action” alternative is required under the Act; this is a requirement of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act, need not be prepared in connection with listing a species as an endangered or threatened species under the Act (see Required Determinations, below).

All changes are largely editorial and are addressed in the response to peer reviewer comments (see Peer Reviewer Comments, above).

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based on: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in combination.

Please refer to the proposed listing rule for the Georgia rockcress (78 FR 56192, September 12, 2013) for a more complete description of the factors affecting this species. Our assessment evaluates the biological status of the species and threats affecting its continued existence. It is based upon the best available scientific and commercial data and the expert opinion of the species status assessment team members.

Habitat fragmentation is a major feature of many landscapes within the eastern deciduous forest and creates boundaries or edges where disturbed patches of vegetation are adjacent to intact habitat. Disturbance events fragment the forest, creating edge habitat and promoting the invasion of nonnative species (Honu and Gibson 2006, pp. 263-264). Edges function as sources of propagules for disturbed habitats and represent complex environmental gradients with changes in light availability, temperature, humidity, wind speed, and soil moisture, with plant species responding directly to environmental changes (Meiners et al. 1999, p. 261). Edge effect, including any canopy break due to timber harvest, fields, or maintained rights-of-way, may penetrate as far as 175 meters (574 feet), resulting in changes in community composition (Honu and Gibson 2006, p. 264; Gehlhausen et al. 2000, p. 21; Meiners et al. 1999, p. 266; Fraver 1994). Roads create a canopy break, destroy the soil profile, and disrupt hydrology of the bluff habitat. Roads are also known corridors for the spread of invasive plant species (Forman et al. 2003, pp. 75-112), as disturbed soil and the maintenance of open, sunny conditions create favorable conditions where invasive species can establish and spread into the forest interior (Fraver 1994, pp. 828-830). Aspect is an important factor in determining how forest microclimate and vegetation are influenced by the external environment (Gehlhausen et al. 2000, p. 30; Fraver 1994, pp. 828-830). Aspect likely increases the distance that the edge effect can influence microclimate and plays an important role on the steep bluff habitat occupied by Georgia rockcress. Edge effects are reduced by a protective border with buffers that eliminate most microhabitat edge effect (Honu and Gibson 2006, p. 255; Gehlhausen et al. 2000, p. 32).

Currently, habitat degradation is the most serious threat to this species' continued existence. Most of the Coastal Plain rivers surveyed by Allison (1995, p. 11) were considered unsuitable for Georgia rockcress because their banks had been disturbed to the point where there was no remaining vegetative buffer. Recent habitat degradation (i.e., vegetation denuded and replaced by hard-packed, exposed mineral soil) has occurred at several Georgia sites in association with residential development and campsites atop the bluffs (Moffett 2007, pp. 3-4). Disturbance associated with timber harvesting, road building, and grazing in areas where the plant exists has created favorable conditions for the invasion of nonnative weeds in this species' habitat (Factor E) (Schotz 2010, p. 10). Timber operations that remove the forest canopy promote early successional species and result in the decline of Georgia rockcress (Schotz 2010, p. 10). Encroachment of development, in the form of bridges, roads, houses, commercial buildings, or utility lines allowing for the introduction of nonnative species (Factor E), also results in the decline of Georgia rockcress (Schotz 2010, pp. 9-10; Moffett 2007, pp. 2-7; Allison 1995, pp. 7-18).

The riparian bluff habitat surrounding 18 of the known populations has been adversely impacted in some way, and in many cases the habitat has suffered multiple impacts. Blacks Bluff, Fort Benning (Georgia), McGuire Ford, Limestone Park, Prairie Bluff, and Fort Benning (Alabama) all have roads that bisect the habitat while Murphys Bluff, Pratts Ferry, Fort Tombecbee, and Resaca Bluffs have roads associated with bridges that impact bluff habitat (Schotz 2010, pp. 20-57; Moffett 2007, pp. 5-8; Allison 1999, pp. 3-8; Allison 1995, pp. 18-28). Housing development requires a road network and further impacts bluff habitat by creating canopy gaps and soil disturbances, with landscaping that may introduce nonnative plants. Whitmore Bluff, McGuire Ford, Prairie Bluff, Fort Tombecbee, and Creekside Glades have bluff habitat that has been impacted by housing development (Schotz 2010, pp. 20-57; Allison 1999, pp. 3-8). Commercial development has the same impact as housing; Resaca Bluff and Fort Tombecbee are impacted by commercial development (Schotz 2010, pp. 20-57; Moffett 2007, pp. 5-8; Allison 1999, pp. 3-8; Allison 1995, pp. 18-28). Impervious surfaces associated with housing and commercial development have increased runoff and provided access for dumping of trash on some sites. The Resaca Bluffs population is further disturbed by the long-term camping at the site. McGuire Ford and Fort Toulouse have maintained fields for pasture or recreational use (Schotz 2010, pp. 20-57; Allison 1999, pp. 3-8). The removal of the canopy to maintain a field provides an opportunity for nonnatives to invade. Utility lines have created canopy breaks at Creekside Glades, Little Schulz Creek, and Goat Rock Dam (Schotz 2010, pp. 20-57; Moffett 2007, pp. 5-8; Allison 1999, pp. 3-8; Allison 1995, pp. 18-28). Timber harvesting activities create soil disturbance and canopy breaks that provide access for nonnative plants to invade. Durant Bend, Portland Landing, Fort Gaines, Pratts Ferry, Fern Glade, and Sixmile Creek, and Whitmore Bluff have all been impacted by timber harvesting activates (Schotz 2010, pp. 20-57; Moffett 2007, pp. 5-8; Allison 1999, pp. 3-8; Allison 1995, pp. 18-28). While these impacts are to the bluff habitat that surrounds these populations, these disturbances eliminate potential habitat for expansion of populations, fragment the populations, and introduce nonnative species (Factor E).

Quarrying destroys the bluff habitat by removing the canopy and soil. The Blacks Bluff population of Georgia rockcress in Floyd County, Georgia, appears to be a surviving remnant of a once larger population. The primary habitat at this locality has been extensively quarried (Allison 1995, p. 10). The Marshalls Bluff population in Monroe County, Alabama, is adjacent to an area that was once quarried (Schotz 2010, pp. 45-47). Rock bluffs along rivers have also been favored sites for hydropower dam construction. The construction of Goat Rock Dam in Harris County, Georgia, destroyed a portion of suitable habitat for a population of Georgia rockcress, and the current population there may also represent a remnant of a once much larger population (Allison 1995, p. 10). The Prairie Bluff and Portland Landing populations in Wilcox and Dallas Counties, Alabama, occur on the banks of William “Bill” Dannelly Reservoir, where potential habitat was likely inundated (Schotz 2010, pp. 41 and 56). Due to the obscure nature of Georgia rockcress, it is likely that other populations on rocky bluffs, in the Piedmont and Ridge and Valley provinces, were destroyed by quarrying or inundated by hydropower projects (Allison 1995, p. 10).

Conservation efforts by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) in Bibb County, Alabama, have included the land acquisition of the entire population of Georgia rockcress at Browns Dam Glade and a small portion of the Cottingham Creek Bluff population, and the proposed acquisition of the Sixmile Creek population.

The Blacks Bluff Preserve population, Floyd County, Georgia, is in private ownership with a conservation easement held by TNC on the property. There were 27 Georgia rockcress reported on this site in 1995; however, the presence of nonnative species has since extirpated Georgia rockcress from this site. The Georgia Plant Conservation Alliance (GPCA) and TNC agreed to bolster the existing population with plants grown from seed collected from Blacks Bluff, and two planting sites have been established. In 2008, 100 Georgia rockcress plants were planted in this unit, with 31 Georgia rockcress surveyed on this site in 2013 (Goldstrohm 2013, p. 3). In April 2013, an additional 15,000 seeds where sown directly onsite to attempt to recruit new plants to this population (Goldstrohm 2013, p. 1).

Two populations are on land owned by the Federal Government, and two are on land owned by the State of Alabama. In Federal ownership, the entire Fern Glade population, Bibb County, Alabama, is on land owned by the Cahaba National Wildlife Refuge. Also, along the banks of the Chattahoochee River in Russell County, Alabama, and Chattahoochee County, Georgia, the entire population at Fort Benning is on land that is in Federal ownership. The Department of Defense (DOD) is aware of the two sites on the Fort Benning property and is working with TNC to monitor and provide for the conservation of these populations (Elmore 2010, pp. 1-2). In August 2014, DOD modified its integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP 2001) for Fort Benning to address Georgia rockcress and its habitat. The Prairie Bluff population, in Wilcox County, Alabama, may be within an area under a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers easement. The State of Alabama owns Fort Tombecbee in Sumtner County and Fort Toulouse State Park in Elmore County, but there is no protection afforded to these State-owned properties.

The majority of the Goat Rock Dam population in Georgia (Harris/Muscogee Counties) is mostly located on buffer lands of the Georgia Power Company and receives a level of protection in the form of a shoreline management plan with vegetative management buffers developed to prohibit disturbance and protect Georgia rockcress; this management plan was developed during Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensing (FERC 2004, pp. 7, 18-19, 29-30; Moffett 2007, p. 4). However, the southernmost portion of the Goat Rock Dam population is on privately owned land.

In total, at least some portions of nine populations are on land owned by potential conservation partners; however, with the exception of Ft. Benning's INRMP, none of these populations has a formal management plan to benefit Georgia rockcress. These populations are afforded varying degrees of protection, and while none of these lands is likely to be developed, they could be subject to other impacts including recreation, military training, road construction, inappropriate timber harvest, and continued pressure from invasive species. Only the Fort Benning population has a management plan that specifically directs management for the benefit of Georgia rockcress. The Goat Rock Dam and Blacks Bluff populations are on land on which efforts have been directed to managing for Georgia rockcress.

Historically, suitable habitat was destroyed or degraded due to quarrying, residential development, timber harvesting, road building, recreation, and hydropower dam construction. Severe impacts continue to occur across the range of this species, from quarrying, residential development, timber harvesting, road building, recreation, and hydropower dam construction, and one or more of these activities pose ongoing threats to all known populations. Given the extremely small size of Georgia rockress populations, projects that destroy even a small amount of habitat can have a serious impact on this species, including existing genetic diversity of the species (Factor E).

Overutilization is not known to pose a threat to this species (Allison 1995, p. 10; Moffett 2007, p. 2; Schotz 2010, p. 11).

Limited browsing of Georgia rockcress plants has been noted in Georgia (Allison 1995, p. 10; Moffett 2007, p. 3; Schotz 2010, p. 11). However, disease and predation are not considered to be a threat to this species.

Georgia rockcress is listed as threatened by the State of Georgia (Patrick et al. 1995, p. 17; Chaffin 2007, p. 47). This State listing provides legal standing under the Georgia Wildflower Preservation Act of 1973. This law prohibits the removal of this and other wildflower species from public land and regulates the taking and sale of plants from private land. This law also triggers the Georgia Environmental Protection Act process in the event of potential impacts to a population by State activities on State-owned land (Moffett 2007, p. 3). However, the greater problem of habitat destruction and degradation is not addressed by this law (Patrick et al. 1995, p. 6); therefore, there is no protection from projects like road construction, construction of reservoirs, installation of utility lines, quarrying, or timber harvest that degrade or fragment habitat, especially on private lands. Moreover, the decline of the species in Georgia is also attributed to invasive species (Factor E), and there are no State regulatory protections in place to ameliorate that threat on private lands. In Alabama, there is no protection or regulation, either direct or indirect, for Georgia rockcress (Schotz 2010, pp. 2, 11).

Climate change will be a particular challenge for biodiversity because the interaction of additional stressors associated with climate change and current stressors may push species beyond their ability to survive (Lovejoy 2005, pp. 325-326). The synergistic implications of climate change and habitat fragmentation are the most threatening facet of climate change for biodiversity (Hannah and Lovejoy 2005, p. 4). Current climate change predictions for terrestrial areas in the Northern Hemisphere indicate warmer air temperatures, more intense precipitation events, and increased summer continental drying (Field et al. 1999, pp. 1-3; Hayhoe et al. 2004, p. 12422; Cayan et al. 2005, p. 6; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007, p. 1181). Climate change may lead to increased frequency and duration of severe storms and droughts (Golladay et al. 2004, p. 504; McLaughlin et al. 2002, p. 6074; Cook et al. 2004, p. 1015).

While severe drought would be expected to have an effect on the plant community, including the mature canopy and canopy gap dynamic, and increased storm intensity could accelerate erosion-related disturbances, the information currently available on the effects of global climate change and increasing temperatures does not make sufficiently precise estimates of the location and magnitude of the effects. In addition, we are not currently aware of any climate change information specific to the habitat of the Georgia rockcress that would indicate which areas may become important to the species in the future.

The primary threat to extant populations of Georgia rockcress is the ongoing invasion of nonnative species due to the degradation of its habitat. Encroachment from timber management and development in the form of bridges, roads, houses, commercial buildings, or utility lines allowing for the introduction of nonnative species has resulted in the decline of Georgia rockcress (Schotz 2010, pp. 9-10; Moffett 2007, pp. 2-7; Allison 1995, pp. 7-18). Human-induced disturbance (quarrying, residential development, timber harvesting, road building, recreation, and hydropower dam construction) has fragmented river bluff habitats and created conditions so that these bluff habitats are receptive to invasion of nonnative species (Honu and Gibson 2006, pp. 263-264). Disturbance of 14 of the 18 known sites occupied by this species has provided opportunities for the invasion of aggressive, nonnative weeds, especially Lonicera japonica (Japanese honeysuckle). This species is a gap adaptor, that can easily invade disturbed areas to 90 meters (295 feet) into a forested habitat (Honu and Gibson 2006, p. 264). Other nonnatives include Melia azedarach (Chinaberry or bead-tree), Pueraria montana var. lobata (kudzu), Albizia julibrissin (mimosa), Ligustrum japonica (Japanese privet), Ligustrum sinense (Chinese privet), Lygodium japonicum (Japanese climbing fern), and Microstegium vimineum (Napalese browntop) (Allison 1995, pp. 18-29; Moffett 2007, p. 9; Schotz 2010, pp. 10, 19-57). While edge habitats are subject to invasion of nonnative species, a more limited group of nonnative plants can then invade closed-canopy habitats; furthermore, species with a rosette form (e.g., Georgia rockcress) are more susceptible to exclusion by some nonnatives (Meiners et al. 1999, p. 266). Georgia rockcress is not a strong competitor and is usually found in areas where growth of other plants is restrained due to the shallowness of the soils or the dynamic status of the site (e.g., eroding riverbanks) (Allison 1995, pp. 7-8; Moffett 2007, p. 5). However, nonnative species are effectively invading these riverbank sites, and the long-term survival of the at least five populations in the Coastal Plain province is questionable (Allison 1995, p. 11). This species is only able to avoid competition with nonnative species where the soil depth is limited (e.g., rocky bluffs) (Allison 1995, pp. 7-8; Moffett 2007, p. 4)

Competition from nonnative species, exacerbated by adjacent land use changes (Factor A), likely contributed to the loss of the population at the type locality in Stewart County, Georgia (Allison 1995, p. 28), and possibly to one of the Bibb County, Alabama, populations and several other sites in this general area (Allison 2002, pers. comm.; Alabama Natural Heritage Program 2004, p. 2). Additional populations are also currently being negatively affected by competition with nonnative plants. According to Moffett (2007, p. 3), most of the sites in Georgia are being impacted by the presence of invasive plant species, primarily Japanese honeysuckle, Chinese privet, and Napalese browntop. Japanese honeysuckle was observed growing on individual plants of Georgia rockcress at three sites visited by Allison in 1995. At a fourth site, plants growing in a mat of Nepalese browntop declined in number from 27 individuals in 1995 (Allison 1995, p. 19) to 3 in 2006 (Moffet 2007 p. 8). Allison (1995, pp. 18-28; Allison 1999, pp. 1-5) considered four other populations to be imminently threatened by the nearby presence of nonnative plants. Thus, rangewide, approximately 40 percent of the populations visited by Allison in 1995 were reportedly threatened by nonnative species. By 2007, Moffett (2007, p, 3) reported all six of the Georgia rockcress populations in Georgia were threatened by nonnative species. By 2010, Schotz (2010, pp. 20- 57) reported 9 populations in Alabama were impacted by nonnative species. Currently 14 of the 18 extant populations are threatened by nonnatives.

Given the extremely low number of total plants (fewer than 5,000 in a given year; 12 of the 18 populations have fewer than 50 plants (Garcia 2012, p. 76; Schotz 2010, p. iii; Elmore 2010, pp. 1-4; Moffett 2007, pp. 2-7; Allison 1999, pp. 1-5; Allison 1995, pp. 7-18)), and because the species is distributed as disjunct populations across sixphysiographic provinces (Schotz 2010, pp. 9-10; Moffett 2007, pp. 2-7; Allison 1995, pp. 7-18) in three major river systems, each population is important to the conservation of genetics for the species (Garcia 2012, pp. 30-36). Only the Goat Rock Dam and Fort Benning populations are sufficiently large (greater than 1,000 individuals) to preclude a genetic bottleneck (Schotz 2010, pp. 13-57; Moffett 2007, p. 8). A genetic bottleneck would result in reduced genetic diversity with mating between closely related individuals, which can lead to reduced fitness due to inbreeding depression (Garcia 2012, Chapter 1; Ellstrand and Elam, pp. 217-237). This species is composed of three genetic groups: A North Georgia group, a Middle Georgia group, and an Alabama group (Garcia 2012, p. 32). While the Middle Georgia genetic group contains the largest populations (Goat Rock Dam and Fort Benning) and is the most important to the conservation of this species, the smaller populations in the North Georgia and Alabama genetic groups are more vunerable to localized extirpation and represent an important conservation element for this species. Any threats that remove or further deteriorate populations can also have a detrimental effect on the existing genetic diversity of the species.

We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats to Georgia rockcress. Habitat degradation (Factor A) and the subsequent invasion of nonnative species (Factor E), more than outright habitat destruction, are the most serious threats to this species' continued existence. The riparian bluff habitat surrounding all 18 of the known populations has been adversely impacted in some way, and in some cases the habitat has suffered multiple impacts. As described above in Table 1, all sites are affected by one or more threats leading to habitat degration or nonnative species invasion. Specifically, in two locations, bluff habitat was quarried for limestone, resulting in the destruction of bluff habitat. Four sites have roads with bridges, and eight sites have roads that pass through or provide access to buildings. Five sites have been impacted by housing, and two sites are impacted by commercial buildings. Six sites have been impacted by timber management. Two sites have maintained fields, one of which is maintained for recreation, that encroach on bluff habitat and potential habitat has been inundated at three sites, and transmission lines bisect two sites. Because these sites are relatively small, even a single road corridor can have substantial impact on the population. While the initial infrastructure is already in place from many of these impacts, they continue to pose a threat to populations as they provide a means for nonnative species to overtake these sites. These threats are likely to continue slowly over time. However, they are of high severity because they often completely destroy the habitat and provide continuing opportunities for the introduction of nonnative species (Factor E).

The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and a threatened species as any species “that is likely to become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future.” We find that the Georgia rockcress is likely to become endangered throughout its entire range within the forseeable future, based on the immediacy, severity, and scope of the threats described above. However, we do not find the Georgia rockcress to meet the definition of an endangered species at this time because there are sufficient sites spread across the geographic range to ensure that the species is unlikely to be in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial information, we are listing the Georgia rockcress ( Arabis georgiana ) as a threatened species in accordance with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.

Because we have determined that Georgia rockcress is threatened throughout all of its range, no portion of its range can be “significant” for purposes of the definitions of “endangered species” and “threatened species.” See the Service's significant portion of the range (SPR) policy (79 FR 37578, July 1, 2014).

Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; private organizations; and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the States and requires that recovery actions be carried out for all listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.

The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act requires the Service to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning components of their ecosystems.

Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline shortly after a species is listed and preparation of a draft and final recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive information becomes available. The recovery plan identifies site-specific management actions that set a trigger for review of the five factors that control whether a species remains endangered or may be downlisted or delisted, and methods for monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) are often established to develop recovery plans.

When completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the final recovery plan will be available on our Web site ( http://www.fws.gov/endangered or http://www.fws.gov/athens/ ), or from our Georgia Ecological Services Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).

Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.

Following publication of this final listing rule, funding for recovery actions will be available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State programs, and cost share grants for non-Federal landowners, the academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State(s) of Alabama and Georgia will be eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote the protection or recovery of the Georgia rockcress. Information on our grant programs that are available to aid species recovery can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.

Please let us know if you are interested in participating in recovery efforts for the Georgia rockcress. Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information on this species whenever it becomes available and any information you may have for recovery planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).

Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as an endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with the Service.

Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding paragraph include management and any other landscape-altering activities on Federal lands administered by the Service or the DOD; issuance of permits under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. ) by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and construction and maintenance of roads or highways by the Federal Highway Administration.

The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered and threatened plants. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, codified at 50 CFR 17.61 for endangered plants and at 50 CFR 17.71 for threatened plants, in part, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to import, export, transport in interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce, or remove and reduce the species to possession from areas under Federal jurisdiction. In addition, for plants listed as endangered, the Act prohibits the malicious damage or destruction on areas under Federal jurisdiction and the removal, cutting, digging up, or damaging or destroying of such plants in knowing violation of any State law or regulation, including State criminal trespass law. It is also unlawful to violate any regulation pertaining to plant species listed as endangered or threatened (section 9(a)(2)(E) of the Act).

We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving endangered and threatened plants species under certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plants, and at 17.72 for threatened plants. With regard to endangered and threatened plants, a permit issued under this section must be for one of the following: scientific purposes, the enhancement of the propagation or survival of threatened species, economic hardship, botanical or horticultural exhibition, educational purposes, or other activities consistent with the purposes and policy of the Act.

It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of listed species. The following activities could potentially result in a violation of section 9 of the Act: Unauthorized collecting, handling, possessing, selling, delivering, carrying, or transporting of the species, including import or export across State lines and international boundaries, except for properly documented antique specimens of these taxa at least 100 years old, as defined by section 10(h)(1) of the Act.

Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Georgia Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).

Under section 4(d) of the Act, the Secretary has discretion to issue such regulations as she deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of threatened species. Our implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.61 and 17.71) for endangered and threatened plants generally incorporate the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act for endangered plants, except when a rule promulgated pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act (4(d) rule) has been issued with respect to a particular threatened species. In such a case, the general prohibitions in 50 CFR 17.61 and 17.71 would not apply to that species, and instead, the 4(d) rule would define the specific take prohibitions and exceptions that would apply for that particular threatened species, which we consider necessary and advisable to conserve the species. With respect to a threatened plant, the Secretary of the Interior also has the discretion to prohibit by regulation any act prohibited by section 9(a)(2) of the Act. Exercising this discretion, which has been delegated to the Service by the Secretary, the Service has developed general prohibitions that are appropriate for most threatened species in 50 CFR 17.71 and exceptions to those prohibitions in 50 CFR 17.72. We are not promulgating a 4(d) rule for Georgia rockcress and as a result, all of the section 9(a)(2) general prohibitions, including the “take” prohibitions, will apply to Georgia rockcress.

We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act need not be prepared in connection with listing a species as an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 (Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available to tribes. This species is not currently known to occur on tribal lands.

A complete list of all references cited in this rule is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or upon request from the Field Supervisor, Ecological Services Office in Athens, Georgia (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).

The primary authors of this rule are the staff members of the Ecological Services Office in Athens, Georgia (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).

Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

We will refer to Arabis georgiana by its common name, Georgia rockcress, in this final rule.

Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, when we determine that any species is an endangered or threatened species, we must designate critical habitat, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable. Designations of critical habitat can only be completed by issuing a rule in the Federal Register .

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall designate critical habitat on the basis of the best available scientific data after taking into consideration the economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.

In total, we are designating 17 critical habitat units with approximately 297 hectares (732 acres) of riparian, river bluff habitat for the species. Five critical habitat units are located in Georgia, including parts of Gordon, Floyd, Harris, Muscogee, and Clay Counties, and 12 critical habitat units in Alabama, including parts of Bibb, Dallas, Elmore, Monroe, Sumter, and Wilcox Counties.

The basis for our action. Under the Act, if we intend to list a species as endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range, we are required to promptly publish a proposal in the Federal Register to list the species as endangered or threatened and make a determination on our proposal within 1 year. We are required under the Act to designate critical habitat, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, for any species determined to be an endangered or threatened species under the Act concurrently with listing.

Elsewhere in this Federal Register , we publish a final rule listing the species as a threatened species under the Act.

We have prepared an economic analysis of the designation of critical habitat. We have prepared an analysis of the economic impacts of the critical habitat designation and related factors. We announced the availability of the draft economic analysis (DEA) in the Federal Register on May 9, 2014 (79 FR 26679), allowing the public to provide comments on our analysis. We address the comments in this final designation.

Peer review and public comment. We sought comments from independent specialists to ensure that our designation is based on scientifically sound data and analyses. Specifically, we obtained opinions from three knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise to review our technical assumptions and analysis, and whether or not we used the best available information. These peer reviewers generally concurred with our methods and conclusions, and provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve this final rule. Information we received from peer review is incorporated into this final designation. We also considered all comments and information received from the public during the comment period, and we held a public hearing on May 28, 2014.

Please refer to the proposed listing rule for the Georgia rockcress (78 FR 56192, September 12, 2013) for a detailed description of previous Federal actions concerning this species.

We requested written comments from the public on the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Georgia rockcress during two comment periods. The first comment period opened with the publication of the proposed rule (78 FR 56506) on September 12, 2013, and closed on November 12, 2013. The second comment period, during which we requested (79 FR 26679) comments on the proposed critical habitat designation and associated draft economic analysis (DEA), opened May 9, 2014, and closed on June 9, 2014. We received no comments during a public hearing in Columbus, Georgia, on May 28, 2014. We also contacted appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies; scientific organizations; and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposed rule and DEA.

During the first comment period, we received one comment letter from the public addressing the proposed critical habitat designation. During the second comment period, we received one comment letter from the public addressing the proposed critical habitat designation. Comments received from the public stated opinions that were not focused on the issue. No substantive comments were received on this rule from the public in either of the comment periods. We also received a letter of support from the State of Georgia.

In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinions from three knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with the species, the geographic region in which the species occurs, and conservation biology principles. We received responses from all three of the peer reviewers.

We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new information regarding critical habitat for the Georgia rockcress. The peer reviewers generally concurred with our methods and conclusions. They provided only editorial comments, which are incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.

In August 2014, Fort Benning, in which proposed critical habitat units 14A and 14B are located, completed a revision to its integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP), which includes specific measures for the Georgia rockcress and its habitat. We determine that the revised INRMP provides a benefit to the species. Pursuant to section 4(a)(3) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), lands covered by the revised INRMP are exempt from the final designation. We have exempted Units 14A Fort Benning (GA) and 14B Fort Benning (AL) from this final designation of critical habitat.

Additionally, we have made corrections to acreages and unit numbers in the proposed rule. In the proposed rule, we listed Unit 7A as having 12 hectares (ha) (29 acres (ac)) and Unit 9B as having 13 ha (21 ac), and the total area of designated critical habitat was 323 ha (786 ac). The corrected numbers are 11 ha (26 ac) for Unit 7A and 13 ha (32 ac) for Unit 9B; with the exemption of Units 14A and 14B (25 ha (61 ac)), the total area of critical habitat is 297 ha (732 ac). Furthermore, due to the exemption of the Fort Benning units from the critical habitat designation, the remaining units have been renumbered in the final rule as Units 1 through 17 by shifting some of them up one number (i.e., 15A became 14A, 15B became 14B, and so forth). The revised unit numbers and their descriptions can be found in the Final Critical Habitat Designation section later in this rule.

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:

(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features

(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and

(b) Which may require special management considerations or protection; and

(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.

Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated with scientific resources management such as research, census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking.

Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or adverse modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.

Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the conservation of the species and (2) which may require special management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those physical or biological features within an area, we focus on the principal biological or physical constituent elements (primary constituent elements such as roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal wetlands, water quality, tide, soil type) that are essential to the conservation of the species. Primary constituent elements are those specific elements of the physical or biological features that provide for a species' life-history processes and are essential to the conservation of the species.

Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. For example, an area currently occupied by the species but that was not occupied at the time of listing may be essential to the conservation of the species and may be included in the critical habitat designation. We designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species only when a designation limited to its range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species.

Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available. Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality Guidelines provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions are based on the best scientific data available. They require our biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical habitat.

When we are determining which areas should be designated as critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the information developed during the listing process for the species. Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and studies, biological assessments, other unpublished materials, or experts' opinions or personal knowledge.

Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act for Federal agencies to insure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species, and (3) section 9 of the Act's prohibitions on taking any individual of the species, including taking caused by actions that affect habitat. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. These protections and conservation tools will continue to contribute to recovery of this species. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best available information at the time of designation will not control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other species conservation planning efforts if new information available at the time of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing to designate as critical habitat, we consider the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and which may require special management considerations or protection. These include, but are not limited to:

(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior;

(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements;

(3) Cover or shelter;

(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) of offspring; and

(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological distributions of a species.

We derive the specific physical or biological features required for Georgia rockcress from studies of this species' habitat, ecology, and life history, as described below.

Georgia rockcress is known from the Lower Gulf Coastal Plain, Upper Gulf Coastal Plain, Red Hills, Black Belt, Piedmont, and the Ridge and Valley Physiographic Provinces (Schotz 2010, p. 6; Allison 1995, p. 6), generally occurring within regions underlain or otherwise influenced by sandstone, granite, and limestone (Moffett 2007, p. 1; Schotz 2010, p. 6). This species occurs on soils that are circumneutral to slightly basic (or buffered) and is primarily associated with high bluffs along major river courses, with dry-mesic to mesic soils of open, rocky, woodland and forested slopes, including shallow soil accumulations on rocky bluffs, ecotones of sloping rock outcrops, and sandy loam along eroding riverbanks (Moffett 2007, p. 1; Schotz 2010, p. 6). The habitat supports a relatively closed to open canopy of deciduous trees with a rich diversity of grasses and forbs characterizing the herb layer (Schotz 2010, p. iii). Therefore, we identify well-drained soils that are buffered or circumneutral to be a physical or biological feature for this species.

Georgia rockcress generally occurs on steep river bluffs often with shallow soils overlaying rock or with exposed rock outcroppings. These specialized soil conditions result in micro-disturbances, such as sloughing soils with limited accumulation of leaf litter or canopy gap dynamics, possibly with wind-thrown trees, which provide small patches of exposed mineral soil in a patchy distribution across the river bluff (Schotz 2010, p. 6). Georgia rockcress is a poor competitor (Allison 1995, p. 8; Moffett 2007, p. 4; Schotz 2010 p. 9); therefore, small-scale disturbances are critical for this species. Exposed mineral soil provides for seed to soil contact for good germination and allows Georgia rockcress to occupy habitat with limited competition for light, mineral, and water resources. Therefore, we identify large river bluffs with steep slopes and/or shallow soils that are subject to localized disturbances to be a physical or biological feature for this species.

Georgia rockcress generally occurs at sites with a substantial, mixed-level canopy with spatial heterogeneity, which provides for mixed sunlight and shade throughout the day and impedes invasive species. The habitat supports a relatively closed to open canopy of Juniperus virginiana (eastern red cedar), Ostrya virginiana (American hophornbeam), Quercus muehlenbergii (chinquapin oak), Fraxinus americana (white ash), Acer barbatum (southern sugar maple), and Cercis canadensis (eastern redbud) with a rich diversity of grasses and forbs characterizing the herb layer (Schotz 2010, p. iii). Georgia rockcress generally occurs on sites with a mature canopy providing partial shading (Moffett 2007, p. 4). Although Georgia rockcress can survive deep shade primarily as a vegetative rosette without flowering or fruiting (Allison 1995, p. 7; Moffett 2007, p. 4; Schotz 2010, p. 10), it cannot reproduce in heavily shaded conditions. It is often the mature trees grown on shallow soils that are subject to wind throw. Therefore, we identify a mature, mixed-level canopy with spatial heterogeneity to be a physical or biological feature for this species.

While Georgia rockcress needs small-scale disturbances to exploit, the species is a poor competitor and is easily outcompeted by aggressive competitors. Natural large-scale disturbances, such as fire and catastrophic flooding, are unlikely to occur on the steep river bluffs occupied by Georgia rockcress. Edge effects may penetrate as far as 175 meters (m) (574 feet (ft)), resulting in changes in community composition (Gehlhausen et al. 2000, p. 21). Aspect is an important factor in determining how forest microclimate and vegetation are influenced by the external environment (Gehlhausen et al. 2000, p. 30) and likely plays an important role on bluff habitat inhabited by Georgia rockcress. Edge effects are reduced by a protective vegetative border with buffers eliminating most microhabitat edge effects (Honu and Gibson 2006, p. 255; Gehlhausen et al. 2000, p. 32). Management strategies for the control of invasive plants should encourage canopy closure of greater than 85 percent for forested stands (Honu and Gibson 2006, p. 255). Therefore, we identify the intact habitat that is buffered to impede the invasion of nonnatives to be a physical or biological feature for this species.

Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to identify the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of Georgia rockcress in areas occupied at the time of listing, focusing on the features' primary constituent elements. Primary constituent elements are those specific elements of the physical or biological features that provide for a species' life-history processes and are essential to the conservation of the species.

The critical habitat is designed to provide sufficient habitat to maintain self-sustaining populations of Georgia rockcress. We believe the conservation of Georgia rockcress is dependent upon the protection and management of sites where existing populations grow, and the maintenance of normal ecological functions within these sites. Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species' life-history processes, we determine that the primary constituent elements specific to Georgia rockcress are:

(1) Large river bluffs with steep and/or shallow soils that are subject to localized disturbances that limit the accumulation of leaf litter and competition within the Lower Gulf Coastal Plain, Upper Gulf Coastal Plain, Red Hills, Black Belt, Piedmont, and Ridge and Valley Physiographic Provinces of Georgia and Alabama.

(2) Well-drained soils that are buffered or circumneutral generally within regions underlain or otherwise influenced by granite, sandstone, or limestone.

(3) A mature, mixed-level canopy with spatial heterogeneity, providing mottled shade and often including species such as eastern red cedar, America hophornbeam, chinquapin oak, white ash, southern sugar maple, and redbud with a rich diversity of grasses and forbs characterizing the herb layer.

(4) Intact habitat that is fully functional (i.e., with mature canopy and discrete disturbances) and buffered by surrounding habitat to impede the invasion of competitors.

When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific areas within the geographic area occupied by the species at the time of listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of the species and which may require special management considerations or protection. A fully functioning bluff habitat (i.e., with mature canopy and discrete disturbances) is required to provide the features essential to the conservation of this species and may require special management considerations or protection to reduce the following threats: Land-clearing activities that alter the canopy, including silvicultural management, building of utility lines, structures, roads, or bridges; construction of reservoirs that inundate habitat; mining activities; or introduction of invasive species that compete directly with Georgia rockcress. Large-scale disturbances, such as fire or soil-disturbing activities, should be minimized. A mature canopy with spatial heterogeneity should be maintained to impede invasive species while providing an opportunity for localized disturbances as canopy-gap dynamics develop. Invasive species should be eliminated from the critical habitat units. A mature canopy on the bluffs and a surrounding buffer area will help to exclude nonnatives.

As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b) we review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of the species and identify occupied areas at the time of listing that contain the features essential to the conservation of the species. If after identifying currently occupied areas, a determination is made that those areas are inadequate to ensure conservation of the species, in accordance with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(e) we then consider whether designating additional areas—outside those currently occupied—are essential for the conservation of the species.

For the Georgia rockcress, we are not designating any areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species because occupied areas are sufficient for the conservation of the species. The 17 critical habitat units capture populations across the known range of the species, providing conservation in six different physiographic provinces in three different river drainages. This effectively protects against the loss of one of the three genetic groups and provides for the expansion of all known genetic groups in each physiographic province.

In preparing this rule, we reviewed and summarized the current information available on Georgia rockcress; the information used includes known locations, our own site-specific species and habitat information, Statewide Geographic Information System (GIS) coverages (e.g., soils, geologic formations, and elevation contours), the Natural Resources Conservation Service's soil surveys, recent biological surveys and reports, peer-reviewed literature, and discussions and recommendations from Georgia rockcress experts.

As discussed below, when determining critical habitat boundaries we made every effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered by water, buildings, pavement, and other structures because such lands lack physical or biological features for Georgia rockcress. The scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this final rule have been excluded by text in the final rule and are not designated as critical habitat. Therefore, a Federal action involving these lands would not trigger section 7 consultation with respect to critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse modification unless the specific action would affect the physical or biological features in the adjacent critical habitat.

The critical habitat designation is defined by the maps, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end of this document in the Regulation Promulgation section. We include more detailed information on the boundaries of the critical habitat designation in the preamble of this rule. We will make the coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based available to the public on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0030, on our Internet site at http://www.fws.gov/athens/, and at the field office responsible for the designation (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , above).

We are designating 17 units as critical habitat for Georgia rockcress. As described below, the critical habitat areas constitute our current best assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat for Georgia rockcress. All of the designated areas are occupied. Except as noted, all of the units contain all of the PCEs and require special management consideration or protection to address the threats (see discussion above) and to ensure their contribution to the conservation of Georgia rockcress. Unit names were derived from reports generated from previous survey efforts (Schotz 2010, pp. 20-57; Moffett 2007, pp. 5-8; Allison 1999, pp. 3-8; Allison 1995, pp. 18-28), to promote continuity with monitoring efforts. Goat Rock Dam (Unit 14 A/B) provides the highest conservation value to the overall designation, having the largest population outside of Ft. Benning. The other units provide the representation and redundancy needed to support viability of the species across six physiographic provinces and multiple river basins.

We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they meet the definition of critical habitat for Georgia rockcress, below.

We are designating a total of 17 critical habitat units for Georgia rockcress located in Georgia, including parts of Clay, Floyd, Gordon, Harris, and Muscogee Counties, and in Alabama, including parts of Bibb, Dallas, Elmore, Monroe, Wilcox, and Sumter Counties. In order to provide definite legal descriptions of the critical habitat boundaries, we drew polygons around these units, using as criteria the plant's primary constituent elements, the known extent of the populations, and the elevation contours on the map. We made an effort to avoid developed areas that are unlikely to contribute to the conservation of Georgia rockcress. However, some areas within the boundaries of the mapped units, such as buildings, roads, clearings, lawns, and other urban landscaped areas, do not contain one or more of the primary constituent elements. Accordingly, Federal actions limited to these areas would not trigger consultation under section 7 of the Act, unless they otherwise affect the species or its primary constituent elements in the critical habitat.

The 6-ha (14-ac) Fort Tombecbee unit is approximately 0.5 kilometers (km) (0.3 miles (mi)) northeast of the city of Epes, Alabama, and is owned by the University of West Alabama. This Georgia rockcress occurrence inhabits the crest and steep slopes of a deeply incised stream bank overlooking a small intermittent creek approximately 91 m (300 ft) upstream from its confluence with the Tombigbee River. Livestock grazing was observed during a visit made in May 2010, in a portion of the site where the species was previously observed; it is conceivable that livestock may have further impacted the occurrence. Only four plants were found in 2010 (Schotz 2010, p. 51). The physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species in this unit may require special management considerations or protection to address threats associated with road crossings, development and potentially grazing.

The 11-ha (27-ac) Marshall Bluff unit is a privately owned tract 9.6 km (6 mi) southwest of Perdue Hill, Alabama, on the eastern bank of the Alabama River on a high bluff (Marshalls Bluff) overlooking the Alabama River. An abandoned quarry exists approximately 150 m (500 ft) distant to the east, and while the quarry may have destroyed bluff habitat, the quarry currently poses no threat to the occurrence, and there are no plans to expand the quarry (Schotz 2010, p. 22). More than 400 plants were found in 2010. The physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species in this unit may require special management considerations or protection to address threats associated with mining.

Privately owned, the 13-ha (32-ac) Prairie Bluff unit is located along the banks of the Millers Ferry (William “Bill” Dannelly) Reservoir, approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) north of the Lee Long Bridge on State Route 28. Georgia rockcress is scattered along the bluffs and ravines associated with the Alabama River. Nonnative species, most notably Ligustrum sinense (Chinese privet) and Lonicera japonica (Japanese honeysuckle), threaten this site (Allison 1999, p. 2; Schotz 2010, pp. 54-55). More than 500 plants were found in this unit in 2010; however, some habitat was likely inundated by the reservoir. This site is slated for residential development with lakeside lots, and the infestation of nonnatives will likely become worse. The physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species in this unit may require special management considerations or protection to address threats associated with roads, development, hydropower, and nonnative species.

Privately owned, the 12-ha (31-ac) Portland Landing River Slopes unit is located 18 km (11.5 mi) south of Orrville, Alabama, on the south side of the Alabama River at Portland Landing. This occurrence of Georgia rockcress is restricted to the unstable, highly erodible, sandy soils along the bank of the Alabama River. Nonnatives, most notably Melia azedarach (Chinaberry or bead-tree), Japanese honeysuckle, and Pueraria montana var. lobata (kudzu), are present, and although not severe, these nonnatives will persist without active management (Schotz 2010, p. 40). In 2010, 498 Georgia rockcress plants were recorded (Schotz 2010, p. 40). The physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species in this unit may require special management considerations or protection to address threats associated with timber harvest, hydropower, and nonnative species.

Privately owned, the 12-ha (28-ac) Durant Bend unit occurs 16 km (10 mi.) east of Selma in a sharp bend on the Alabama River. Fewer than 50 plants were reported in sandy alluvium along the Alabama River under a partially open to filtered canopy in 2010 (Schotz 2010, p. 37). While the majority of plants occur in forested conditions, a small number of plants were observed in relatively open and exposed soils of actively eroding sections of the riverbank. Nonnatives, including Chinese privet and Japanese honeysuckle, are present but not severe. Timber harvesting has recently taken place approximately 46 m (150 ft) north of the site, but it currently has not impacted species' viability or habitat integrity (Schotz 2010, p. 37). The physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species in this unit may require special management considerations or protection to address threats associated with timber harvest and nonnative species.

Privately owned, the 11-ha (26-ac) Murphys Bluff Bridge Cahaba River unit is 11.4 km (7 mi) southwest of Centreville, Alabama, and located along the west bank of the Cahaba River downstream (southwest) of the Murphy Road Bridge. Chinese privet, Japanese honeysuckle, and other nonnatives are present, but are relatively sparse. Infestation of nonnative plants could worsen. Timber harvesting has been observed nearby and may pose a potential concern (Schotz 2010, p. 22). Sixteen Georgia rockcress plants were found at this location during the 2010 survey. The physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species in this unit may require special management considerations or protection to address threats associated with road crossings and nonnative species.

Privately owned, the 11-ha (26-ac) Creekside Glades subunit is located 9.6 km (6 mi) north-northeast of Centreville, Alabama, along the banks of Little Schultz Creek. Georgia rockcress occurs in association with a small dolomite glades complex on either side of Little Schultz Creek. The plants (mostly rosettes, i.e., non-reproductive) predominantly occur in the ecotone of the glades and the encompassing woodland, in association with a mix of shrubs and low-growing trees. A smaller number of individuals (mostly mature) can be found in the glades and surrounding woodlands (Allison 1999, p. 2; Schotz 2010, p. 30). This subunit contained 42 plants in 2010. A utility line right-of-way passes through this subunit, and while there is no canopy on the right-of-way, it provides essential supporting habitat such that the right-of-way has not been excluded from critical habitat. The physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species in this subunit may require special management considerations or protection to address threats associated with development and utility right-of-way maintenance.

Privately owned, the 12-ha (28-ac) Little Schulz Creek subunit is located 8.9 km (5.5 mi) north-northeast of Centreville, Alabama. In 2010, 29 plants occurred on limestone outcrops along the west bank of the Cahaba River. The site is characterized as a bouldery limestone woodland situated along a low bluff overlooking the Cahaba River. Georgia rockcress inhabits shallow soils associated with the bluff, occurring under an open to lightly shaded canopy (Schotz 2010, p. 32). This subunit consisted of 29 plants in 2010. The physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species in this subunit may require special management considerations or protection to address threats associated with development and utility right-of-way maintenance.

Privately owned, the Cottingham Creek Bluff subunit is located on the east side of the Cahaba River, upstream of Pratts Ferry Bridge, 10 km (6.2 mi) northeast of Centreville, Alabama. The Pratts Ferry subunit is located on the west side of the Cahaba River, downstream of Pratts Ferry Bridge, 10 km (6.2 mi) northeast of Centreville, Alabama. A small portion (26 percent (5.88 ha (14.5 ac)) of the Cottingham Creek Bluff subunit is owned by The Nature Conservancy (TNC). A small number of plants are confined to an abandoned limestone quarry several hundred feet back from the southeastern side of the river's edge. Chinese privet and Japanese honeysuckle impact this site, particularly in the vicinity of the abandoned quarry. Nonnatives could become worse. Timber harvesting is of potential concern in an area adjacent to the population on the west side of the Cahaba River, which was selectively logged in the 1990s (Allison 1999, p. 3; Schotz 2010, pp. 34-35). Subunit 8A is 22 ha (55 ac), and subunit 8B is 11 ha (28 ac). In 2010, these two subunits together contained 299 Georgia rockcress plants. The physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species in these subunits may require special management considerations or protection to address threats associated with road crossings, timber harvest, and nonnative species.

The 14-ha (34-ac) Fern Glade subunit is centered near the confluence of the Little Cahaba River and Sixmile Creek approximately 14.2 km (8.9 mi) northeast of Centreville, Alabama. Twelve percent of the Fern Glade subunit (4.2 ha (1.7 ac)) is owned by TNC, and 79 percent (10.9 ha (27 ac)) of this subunit is part of the Cahaba National Wildlife Refuge. A moderate incursion of invasive Chinese privet and Japanese honeysuckle occurs at this site. Nonnatives will likely become worse (Allison 1999, p. 3; Schotz 2010, p. 26). A small glade on the north side of the Little Cahaba River had 81 Georgia rockcress plants in 2010. The physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species in this subunit may require special management considerations or protection to address threats associated with timber harvest and nonnative species.

Privately owned, the Sixmile Creek subunit is located 13.7 km (8.5 mi) northeast of Centreville, 0.8 km (0.5 mi) upstream on Sixmile Creek from its confluence with the Little Cahaba River. The majority of this subunit (96.6 percent or 8.2 ha (20.3 ac)) was acquired by TNC in 2013. This population of Georgia rockcress is on the west side of Sixmile Creek. In a relatively isolated site, Georgia rockcress occupies the upper slope and summit of a steep forested bluff overlooking Sixmile Creek. This 13-ha (31-ac) subunit had 59 Georgia rockcress plants in 2010. The physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species in this subunit may require special management considerations or protection to address threats associated with timber harvest and nonnative species.

Privately owned, the Browns Dam Glade subunits are located 15.8 km (9.8 mi) northeast of Centreville, Alabama, on both sides of the Little Cahaba River. Subunit 10A is on the north side of the river, and subunit 10B is in a sharp bend on the south side of the River. More than 96 percent of subunit 10A (13.7 ha (33.8 ac)) and all of subunit 10B are owned by TNC. A combination of open woodland and dolomitic glades characterize the site. An infestation of nonnatives, most notably Chinese privet, occurs at this unit. This site serves as a primitive recreation area for local residents, resulting in some trash disposal and the construction of fire pits (Allison 1999, p. 5; Schotz 2010, pp. 24-25). Subunits 10A and 10B are 14 ha (35 ac) and 15 ha (37 ac), respectively. A complex of dolomitic glades and associated woodlands along both sides of the Little Cahaba River contained 71 Georgia rockcress plants in 2010. The physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species in these subunits may require special management considerations or protection to address threats associated with nonnative species.

Privately owned, the McGuire Ford/Limestone Park unit is located 18.7 km (11.6 mi) northeast of Centreville, Alabama, on the southeast side of the Little Cahaba River. A small number of plants occupy shallow soils of low, rocky limestone outcrops along the Little Cahaba River under a lightly shaded canopy of eastern red cedar, chinquapin oak, white ash, Southern sugar maple, and redbud, among others (Allison 1999, p. 5; Schotz 2010, p. 20). This 6-ha (15-ac) unit contained 50 Georgia rockcress plants during the 2010 survey. The physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species in this unit may require special management considerations or protection to address threats associated with roads, development, and maintenance of a pasture.

State-owned, the Fort Toulouse State Park unit is located 16 km (10 mi) north of Montgomery, Alabama, on the south side of the Coosa River. Georgia rockcress is widely scattered along the bluffs overlooking the Coosa River, primarily occupying mesic, sandy soils of upper slopes and crest. Japanese honeysuckle is beginning to severely impact many areas of the site (Allison 1999, p. 2; Schotz 2010, p. 42). This 7-ha (17-ac) unit contained 47 Georgia rockcress plants during the 2010 survey. The physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species in this unit may require special management considerations or protection to address threats associated with maintenance of a recreational field and nonnative species.

Privately owned, the Fort Gaines Bluff unit is located 1.5 km (0.9 mi) south of Fort Gaines, Georgia, on the Chattahoochee River. This high, steep, eroding river bank has sandy loam soils and an intact hardwood overstory. Japanese honeysuckle has become severe over much of area (Allison 1995, pp. 18-29; Moffett 2007, p. 9). This 17-ha (43-ac) unit contained 84 Georgia rockcress plants in 2010. The physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species in this unit may require special management considerations or protection to address threats associated with timber harvest and nonnative species.

Privately owned, the Goat Rock Dam is 18.5 km (11.5 mi) north of Columbus Georgia. The Goat Rock North subunit is immediately north of Goat Rock Dam on the banks of Goat Rock impoundment, while the Goat Rock South subunit is immediately downstream of Goat Rock Dam along the high bluffs overlooking the Chattahoochee River. All of Goat Rock North subunit and the majority of the Goat Rock South subunit are owned by a corporation that supports conservation efforts for Georgia rockcress. The corporately owned property is provided modest protection in the shoreline management plan, which was developed during Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensing (FERC 2004, pp. 29-30). However, the southernmost portion of the Goat Rock South subunit is privately owned. This high rocky bluff is mostly covered by a mature canopy of trees. A narrow portion of this habitat has a transmission line passing over the top where all woody species have been removed; however, Georgia rockcress plants are scattered in the transmission line right-of-way. This area contains PCEs 1 and 2; therefore, it is included in the final designation. Nonnative species, including Chinese privet and Japanese honeysuckle, have severely impacted this site (Allison 1995, pp. 24-27; Moffett 2007, pp. 6-9). Conservation actions here have included invasive species/woody competition removal (both manually and chemically) to benefit existing Georgia rockcress plants, and prescribed burning to open up new adjacent sites for outplanting enhancement. The Chattahoochee Nature Center (CNC) outplanted approximately 300 Georgia rockcress plants of the Goat Rock genotype at this site in 2008. The local office of TNC has also expressed interest in possibly including this site in their long-range ecosystem planning (Elmore 2010, pp. 1-3). Subunits 14A and 14B are 7 ha (19 ac) and 24 ha (59 ac), respectively, and contain two or more of the PCEs throughout the subunits. In 2007, approximately 1,000 Georgia rockcress plants were found scattered across these subunits. The physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species in these subunits may require special management considerations or protection to address threats associated with hydropower, utility line maintenance, and nonnative species.

Privately owned, the 37-ha (92-ac) Blacks Bluff Preserve unit is located 6.5 km (4.0 mi) southwest of Rome, Georgia, on the Coosa River. Blacks Bluff is in private ownership with a conservation easement on the property. There were 27 Georgia rockcress plants reported on this site in 1995; however, the presence of nonnative species has since extirpated all Georgia rockcress from this site. The Georgia Plant Conservation Alliance (GPCA) and TNC agreed to bolster the existing population with plants grown from seed collected at the two nearby (Ridge and Valley physiographic province) populations, Whitmore Bluff, and Resaca Bluffs. The CNC collected seed and grew 35 plants from Whitmore Bluff and 65 plants from Resaca Bluffs. In 2008, 100 Georgia rockcress plants were planted in this unit, with 84 Georgia rockcress surveyed on this site in 2011 (Goldstrohm 2011, p. 1). This steep bluff with limestone ledges and boulders has a mature deciduous canopy. Multiple sources of disturbance, including an abandoned quarry, have impacted this site and resulted in the establishment of many nonnative species, including Japanese honeysuckle and Nepalese browntop (Allison 1995, pp. 19-20; Moffett 2007, pp. 5-9; Elmore 2010, pp. 1-3). The physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species in this unit may require special management considerations or protection to address threats associated with roads, mining, and nonnative species.

Privately owned, the Whitmore Bluff unit is located 6.5 km (4 mi) northeast of Rome, Georgia, on the east bank of the Oostanaula River. This steep bluff with limestone boulders has a mature canopy with Ulmus alata (winged elm), Quercus montana (chestnut oak), and Fraxinus americana (white ash), and an understory including Hydrangea arborescens (wild hydrangea), Toxicodendron radicans (poison ivy), and Sedum ternatum (woodland stonecrop). Japanese honeysuckle has severely impacted this site (Allison 1995, p. 21; Moffett 2007, pp. 6-9; Elmore 2010, pp. 1-3). This 17-ha (43-ac) unit contained 63 Georgia rockcress plants in 1995, but only 12 in 2010. The physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species in this unit may require special management considerations or protection to address threats associated with timber harvest and nonnative species.

Privately owned, the Resaca Bluffs unit is located 0.8 km (0.5 mi) southwest of Resaca, Georgia, immediately east of I-75 along the northern bank of the Oostanaula River. This unit includes a rocky limestone bluff with a mature canopy, including eastern red cedar, Quercus nigra (water oak), Quercus velutina (black oak), winged elm, white ash, southern sugar maple, and redbud. Nonnative species, including Chinese privet and Japanese honeysuckle, have severely impacted this site (Allison 1995, pp. 22-23; Moffett 2007, pp. 5-9; Elmore 2010, pp. 1-3). This 5-ha (13-ac) unit contained 51 plants in 1995, and 42 in 2010. The physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species in this unit may require special management considerations or protection to address threats associated with road crossings, development, and nonnative species.

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat.

Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals have invalidated our regulatory definition of “destruction or adverse modification” (50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 245 F.3d 434 (5th Cir. 2001)), and we do not rely on this regulatory definition when analyzing whether an action is likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Under the provisions of the Act, we determine destruction or adverse modification on the basis of whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended conservation role for the species.

If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the section 7 consultation process are actions on State, tribal, local, or private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. ) or a permit from the Service under section 10 of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat, and actions on State, tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally-funded or authorized, do not require section 7 consultation.

As a result of section 7 consultation, we document compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:

(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat; or

(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect or are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.

When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. We define “reasonable and prudent alternatives” (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified during consultation that:

(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the action,

(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,

(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and

(4) Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or avoid the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.

Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are similarly variable.

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.

The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended conservation role for the species. Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the physical or biological features to an extent that appreciably reduces the conservation value of critical habitat for Georgia rockcress. As discussed above, the role of critical habitat is to support life-history needs of the species and provide for the conservation of the species.

Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such designation.

Activities that may affect critical habitat, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, should result in consultation for the Georgia rockcress. These activities include, but are not limited to:

(1) Actions that would significantly alter the canopy. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, silvicultural management, construction of utility lines, creation of pasture or maintained lawn, construction of buildings, and construction of roads or bridges. Invasive species should be precluded from the critical habitat units. A mature canopy on the bluffs and a surrounding buffer area will help to preclude nonnative and invasive species. Activities that alter the canopy could alter the natural canopy gap dynamic that provides Georgia rockcress a competitive advantage and result in direct or cumulative adverse effects to these individuals and their life cycles.

(2) Actions that would inundate habitat. Construction of a dam downstream of a critical habitat unit could result in the loss of habitat. These activities could alter the functioning bluff habitat and result in direct or cumulative adverse effects to these individuals and their life cycles.

(3) Actions that would significantly alter the soil. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, construction of roads or bridges, construction of buildings (e.g., dams, residential housing, or commercial buildings), and mining activities. These activities would permanently alter the soil that Georgia rockcress is dependent on to complete its life cycle.

The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) requires each military installation that includes land and water suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to complete an integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) by November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources found on the base. Each INRMP includes:

(1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation, including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;

(2) A statement of goals and priorities;

(3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented to provide for these ecological needs; and

(4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.

Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement, and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: “The Secretary shall not designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographic areas owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for designation.”

We consult with the military on the development and implementation of INRMPs for installations with listed species. We analyzed INRMPs developed by military installations located within the range of the proposed critical habitat designation for Georgia rockcress to determine if the lands are exempt under section 4(a)(3) of the Act.

In 2001, Fort Benning completed its Service-approved INRMP. The installation has revised its INRMP to include specific measures for the Georgia rockcress and its habitat, including monitoring and management for the Georgia rockcress including: Management of feral swine, limiting timber harvest within 200 feet of Georgia rockcress populations, monitoring of known Georgia rockcress populations and surveys for new populations, and monitoring and control of invasive species. The revised INRMP became effective August 2014. In accordance with section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that the lands within Fort Benning that were originally proposed for critical habitat are subject to the Fort Benning INRMP and that conservation efforts identified in the INRMP will provide a benefit to Georgia rockcress. Therefore, lands within this installation are exempt from critical habitat designation under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. We are not including approximately 25 ha (61 ac) of habitat in this final critical habitat designation because of this exemption. As described in the proposed critical habitat rule, these lands are located in Chattahoochee County, Georgia, and Russell County, Alabama, south of Columbus, Georgia, on the Chattahoochee River near its confluence with Oswichee Creek and across from its confluence with Red Mill Creek.

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the best available scientific data after taking into consideration the economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if she determines that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the critical habitat, unless she determines, based on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species. In making that determination, the statute on its face, as well as the legislative history are clear that the Secretary has broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give to any factor.

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to consider economic impacts, we prepared an incremental effects memorandum (IEM) and screening analysis which together with our narrative and interpretation of effects we consider our draft economic analysis (DEA) of the proposed critical habitat designation and related factors (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013; Industrial Economics, Inc. 2014). The analysis, dated April 8, 2014, was made available for public review from May 29, 2014, through June 9, 2014, and a summary of the findings were provided on http://www.regulations.gov from May 9, 2014, to June 9, 2014 (79 FR 26679). The DEA addressed potential economic impacts of critical habitat designation for Georgia rockcress. Following the close of the comment period, we reviewed and evaluated all information submitted during the comment period that may pertain to our consideration of the probable incremental economic impacts of this critical habitat designation. Additional information relevant to the probable incremental economic impacts of critical habitat designation for the Georgia rockcress is summarized below and available in the screening analysis for the Georgia rockcress, available at http://www.regulations.gov .

In our DEA, we concluded that section 7-related costs of designating critical habitat for the Georgia rockcress are likely to be limited to additional administrative effort to consider possible adverse effects to critical habitat during consultation. This finding is based on several factors, including:

1. Project modifications requested to avoid adverse modification are likely to be the same as those needed to avoid jeopardy in occupied habitat; and

2. All units are considered occupied by the plant, providing significant baseline protection.

The number of future consultations is expected to be at most five in a given year. Unit costs of the administrative effort necessary to address adverse modification of critical habitat during section 7 consultation is estimated to range from approximately $400 to $9,000 (2014 dollars, total incremental costs for all parties participating in a single consultation). Thus, the annual administrative burden due solely to the critical habitat designation is unlikely to reach $100 million. Given the estimates in the screening analysis for the Georgia rockcress, predictions are that costs are unlikely to exceed $45,000 in a given year (2014 dollars). This is essentially the upper end of the cost for section 7 consultations and is the cost attributable to just the critical habitat.

In other words, the incremental administrative burden resulting from the designation of critical habitat for the Georgia rockcress is unlikely to reach $100 million in a given year based on the small number of anticipated consultations and per-consultation costs. Furthermore, the designation is unlikely to trigger additional requirements under State or local regulations.

Our economic analysis did not identify any disproportionate costs that are likely to result from the designation. Consequently, the Secretary is not exercising her discretion to exclude any areas from this designation of critical habitat for the Georgia rockcress based on economic impacts.

A copy of the IEM and screening analysis with supporting documents may be obtained by contacting the Georgia Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES ) or by downloading from the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov .

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are lands owned or managed by the Department of Defense where a national security impact might exist. In preparing this final rule, we have exempted from the designation of critical habitat those Department of Defense lands with completed INRMPs determined to provide a benefit to the Georgia rockcress. We have also determined that the remaining lands within the designation of critical habitat for the species are not owned or managed by the Department of Defense or Department of Homeland Security, and, therefore, we anticipate no impact on national security or homeland security. Consequently, the Secretary is not exercising her discretion to exclude any areas from this final designation based on impacts on national security or homeland security.

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national security. We consider a number of factors, including whether the landowners have developed any habitat conservation plans (HCPs) or other management plans for the area, or whether there are conservation partnerships that would be encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In addition, we look at any tribal issues, and consider the government-to-government relationship of the United States with tribal entities. We also consider any social impacts that might occur because of the designation.

In preparing this final rule, we have determined that there are currently no HCPs or other management plans for the Georgia rockcress, and the final designation does not include any tribal lands or trust resources, and so we anticipate no impact on tribal lands, partnerships, or HCPs from this critical habitat designation. Accordingly, the Secretary is not exercising her discretion to exclude any areas from this final designation based on other relevant impacts.

Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not significant.

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C 801 et seq. ), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities (i.e. small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

According to the Small Business Administration, small entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this designation, as well as types of project modifications that may result. In general, the term “significant economic impact” is meant to apply to a typical small business firms' business operations.

The Service's current understanding of the requirements under the RFA, as amended, and following recent court decisions, is that Federal agencies are only required to evaluate the potential incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly regulated by the rulemaking itself, and, therefore, not required to evaluate the potential impacts to indirectly regulated entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried by the agency is not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore, under section 7 only Federal action agencies are directly subject to the specific regulatory requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse modification) imposed by critical habitat designation. Consequently, it is our position that only Federal action agencies will be directly regulated by this designation. There is no requirement under RFA to evaluate the potential impacts to entities not directly regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies are not small entities. Therefore, because no small entities are directly regulated by this rulemaking, the Service certifies that this final critical habitat designation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

We did not receive any substantive comments pertaining to our consideration of the probable incremental economic impacts of this critical habitat designation. Therefore, we affirm our certification that this designation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 (E.O. 13211; “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use”) on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. OMB has provided guidance for implementing this Executive Order that outlines nine outcomes that may constitute “a significant adverse effect” when compared to not taking the regulatory action under consideration. The economic analysis finds that none of these criteria are relevant to this analysis. Thus, based on information in the draft economic analysis, energy-related impacts associated with Georgia rockcress conservation activities within critical habitat are not expected. As such, the designation of critical habitat is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.

In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ), we make the following findings:

(1) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both “Federal intergovernmental mandates” and “Federal private sector mandates.” These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). “Federal intergovernmental mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments” with two exceptions. It excludes “a condition of Federal assistance.” It also excludes “a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program,” unless the regulation “relates to a then-existing Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,” if the provision would “increase the stringency of conditions of assistance” or “place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's responsibility to provide funding,” and the State, local, or tribal governments “lack authority” to adjust accordingly. At the time of enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. “Federal private sector mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.”

The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above onto State governments.

(2) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The government-owned lands being designated as critical habitat are owned by the State of Alabama and the Department of the Interior. None of these government entities meets the definition of “small governmental jurisdiction.” Therefore, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.

In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical habitat for Georgia rockcress in a takings implications assessment. The economic cost of implementing the rule through section 7 of the Act will most likely be limited to additional administrative effort to consider adverse modification during consultations. According to a review of consultation records and discussions with multiple Service field offices, the additional administrative cost of addressing adverse modification during the section 7 consultation process ranges from approximately $400 to $9,000 per consultation (2014 dollars). Based on the project activity identified by relevant action agencies, the number of future consultations is likely to be less than five consultations per year. Thus, the incremental administrative burden resulting from the rule is unlikely to reach $100 million in a given year, and given the economic analysis we have determined that there are no additional takings implications. The takings implications assessment concludes that this designation of critical habitat for Georgia rockcress does not pose significant takings implications.

In accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), this rule does not have significant Federalism effects. A federalism summary impact statement is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and coordinated development of, this critical habitat designation with appropriate State resource agencies in Alabama and Georgia. We are not designating any unoccupied areas. The designation of critical habitat in areas currently occupied by the Georgia rockcress will impose no additional restrictions to those that will be put in place by listing the species and, therefore, will have little incremental impact on State and local governments and their activities. The designation may have some benefit to these governments because the areas that contain the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the elements of the features of the habitat necessary to the conservation of the species are specifically identified. This information does not alter where and what federally sponsored activities may occur. However, it may assist local governments in long-range planning (rather than having them wait for case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur).

Where State and local governments require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat, consultation under section 7(a)(2) will be required. While non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.

The Department, in promulgating this rule, has determined that this rule will not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988. We are designating critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. To assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the species, the rule identifies the elements of physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the Georgia rockcress. The designated areas of critical habitat are presented on maps, and the rule provides several options for the interested public to obtain more detailed location information, if desired.

This rule does not contain any new collections of information that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). This rule will not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, in connection with designating critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ( Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 (Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available to tribes.

We determined that there are no tribal lands that are occupied by Georgia rockcress at the time of listing that contain the features essential for conservation of the species. Therefore, we are not designating critical habitat for the Georgia rockcress on tribal lands.

A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0030 and upon request from the Field Supervisor, Ecological Services Office in Athens, Georgia (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).

The primary authors of this final rulemaking are the staff members of the Ecological Services Office in Athens, Georgia.

Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

Symbols were added to the regulations governing the Wildlife Restoration and Sport Fish Restoration (WSFR) programs through regulations published December 15, 1987 (52 FR 47571). One symbol represents the Wildlife Restoration Program, one represents the Sport Fish Restoration Program, and one represents the combined programs. The language in the combined symbol reads “Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration.” The symbols have remained the same since originally published.

At the time the symbol was first developed, the program within the Service that administers these grant programs was called “Division of Federal Aid.” Since then, we have changed our name to the “Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program.” The order of programs reflects that the Wildlife Restoration Program was authorized prior to the Sport Fish Restoration Program. It has been many years since we have changed our name, and referencing WSFR is now common. Having the combined symbol read “Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration” is confusing to States who implement projects with WSFR funding; manufacturers who contribute millions of dollars through excise taxes, boater fuel and electric motor taxes, and import duties that contribute to the Wildlife Restoration Account and the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund; and interested stakeholders.

In 2011, we completed a comprehensive review and update to 50 CFR part 80 (76 FR 46150, August 1, 2011). We neglected to correct the symbol to reflect the current name of the WSFR program and now correct this error.

If a State or other entity is using the former combined symbol on signs, print media, or other physical items to identify WSFR or WSFR-funded projects, they should continue to use those items until quantities are exhausted or they are normally replaced. The new combined symbol may be used immediately for electronic updates or new signs, print media, or other physical items. If you have questions on the appropriate use of the combined symbol, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , above.

Accordingly, we amend 50 CFR part 80 as follows:

The reef fish fishery of the Gulf, which includes red grouper, is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) and is implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). All weights specified in this rule are gutted weight.

The Gulf red grouper recreational ACL is 1,900,000 lb (861,826 kg), and the recreational ACT is 1,730,000 lb (784,715 kg), as specified in 50 CFR 622.41(e)(2)(iv). The recreational ACL and ACT for red grouper were implemented through Amendment 32 to the FMP (77 FR 6988, February 10, 2012). Red grouper are not overfished, based on the most recent Status of U.S. Fisheries Report to Congress.

NMFS determined that the 2013 recreational landings exceeded the 2013 recreational ACL of 1,900,000 lb (861,826 kg) by 492,113 lb (223,219 kg) and implemented post-season AMs through a temporary rule published on April 30, 2014 (79 FR 24353). In accordance with regulations at 50 CFR 622.41(e)(2)(ii), that temporary rule reduced the bag limit for Gulf red grouper from four to three fish (within the four-fish grouper aggregate bag limit) and reduced the recreational fishing season for Gulf red grouper for the 2014 fishing year to ensure landings do not exceed the recreational ACT.

NMFS now has updated landings data for recreational red grouper for the 2014 fishing year and has determined that landings were less than projected. Therefore, NMFS is extending the recreational fishing season for red grouper through this temporary rule. The extension is effective 12:01 a.m., local time, September 16, 2014, until 12:01 a.m., local time, October 4, 2014. The season will then be closed until it reopens on January 1, 2015, the beginning of the 2015 recreational fishing season, unless further notification is published in the Federal Register .

During the recreational sector closure, the bag and possession limit for red grouper in or from the Gulf EEZ is zero. This bag and possession limit applies in the Gulf on board a vessel for which a valid Federal charter vessel/headboat permit for Gulf reef fish has been issued, without regard to where such species were harvested, i.e. in state or Federal waters.

The recreational sector for red grouper will reopen on January 1, 2015, the beginning of the 2015 recreational fishing season. The 2015 bag limit for red grouper will return to four fish, as specified at 50 CFR 622.38(b)(2), unless AMs are implemented due to a recreational ACL overage in 2014, or the Council takes subsequent regulatory action to adjust the bag limit.

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

This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.41(e)(2)(ii) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

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

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this temporary rule. Such procedures are unnecessary because the final rule for Amendment 32 to the FMP (77 FR 6988, February 10, 2012) that established the recreational ACL, ACT, and AMs has already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public that additional harvest remains on the established recreational ACT and, therefore, the recreational fishing season for Gulf red grouper will be extended for 18 additional days.

This rule relieves a restriction by extending the recreational fishing season for red grouper. Because it relieves a restriction, this rule is not subject to the 30-day delayed effectiveness provision of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (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.

In the Aleutian Islands subarea, the portion of the 2014 pollock total allowable catch (TAC) allocated to the Aleut Corporation's directed fishing allowance (DFA) is 7,350 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2014 and 2015 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (79 FR 12108, March 4, 2014), and through reallocation (79 FR 12959, March 7, 2014).

As of September 4, 2014, the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, (Regional Administrator) has determined that 4,000 mt of Aleut Corporation's DFA will not be harvested. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.20(a)(5)(iii)(B)( 4 ), NMFS reallocates 4,000 mt of Aleut Corporation's DFA from the Aleutian Islands subarea to the 2014 Bering Sea subarea allocations. The 4,000 mt of pollock is apportioned to the AFA Inshore sector (50 percent), AFA catcher/processor sector (40 percent), and the AFA mothership sector (10 percent). The 2014 Bering Sea pollock incidental catch allowance remains at 38,770 mt. As a result, the harvest specifications for pollock in the Aleutian Islands subarea included in the final 2014 and 2015 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (79 FR 12108, March 4, 2014)), and revised (79 FR 12959, March 7, 2014), are further revised as follows: 3,350 mt to Aleut Corporation's DFA. Furthermore, pursuant to § 679.20(a)(5), Table 3 of the final 2014 and 2015 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (79 FR 12108, March 4, 2014), and revised (79 FR 12959, March 7, 2014), is further revised to make 2014 pollock allocations consistent with this reallocation. This reallocation results in an adjustment to the 2014 Aleut Corporation allocation established at § 679.20(a)(5).

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 reallocation of AI pollock. Since the pollock fishery is currently open, it is important to immediately inform the industry as to the final Bering Sea subarea pollock allocations. Immediate notification is necessary to allow for the orderly conduct and efficient operation of this fishery; allow the industry to plan for the fishing season and avoid potential disruption to the fishing fleet as well as processors; and provide opportunity to harvest increased seasonal pollock allocations while value is optimum. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of September 4, 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.