Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Fokker Services B.V. Model F.27 Mark 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, and 700 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 8, 2018 (83 FR 55825). The NPRM was prompted by a report of an MLG collapse due to a broken drag stay; an investigation revealed that the drag stay failure was due to fatigue cracks, introduced by incorrect machining of the affected drag stay tube during production. The NPRM proposed to require an inspection of the drag stay unit to determine the signal indication, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary.

We are issuing this AD to address fatigue cracking, which could lead to MLG collapse and result in damage to the airplane during landing and consequent injury to passengers.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2018-0015, dated January 25, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F.27 Mark 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, and 700 airplanes. The MCAI states:

EASA AD 2018-0016, dated January 25, 2018, applies to Model F.27 Mark 500 airplanes and has been added to the Required Airworthiness Action List.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0956.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

Fokker Services B.V. has issued Service Bulletin SBF27-32-173, dated November 30, 2017. This service information describes procedures for an inspection of the drag stay unit to determine the signal indication, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Dowty Aerospace Landing Gear issued Service Bulletin 32-82W, Revision 2, dated July 29, 1994; and Service Bulletin 32-169B, Revision 2, dated July 29, 1994. This service information describes procedures for reworking the drag stay tube. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.

This service information can be obtained from SAFRAN Landing Systems by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

We estimate that this AD affects 1 airplane of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

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.

This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

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 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-400 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 8, 2018 (83 FR 55828). The NPRM was prompted by reports of cracking in the splice plate on the lower sill of the overwing emergency exit doors. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for such cracking and applicable on-condition actions. We are issuing this AD to address cracking in the splice plate, which, if not addressed, could result in the inability of a principal structural element to sustain limit loads and possible rapid decompression of the fuselage.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. We have considered the comments received. Boeing indicated no objection to the NPRM. Commenters Zack Jones and Josep Clapes stated their support for the NPRM.

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

We reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1380 RB, dated July 18, 2018. This service information describes procedures for repetitive high frequency eddy current inspections for cracking in the splice plate on the lower sill of the overwing emergency exit doors and applicable on-condition actions. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

We estimate that this AD affects 85 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition 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.

This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

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 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:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 13, 2016 (81 FR 70647). The NPRM was prompted by reports of PSUs becoming detached from the supporting airplane structure in several Model 737 series airplanes during survivable accidents. The NPRM proposed to require modifying the PSUs and life vest panels by removing the existing inboard lanyard and installing two new lanyards on the outboard edge of the PSUs and life vest panels.

We issued a supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. The SNPRM published in the Federal Register on September 14, 2018 (83 FR 46666). We issued the SNPRM to add airplanes to the applicability, add a measurement of the distance between the hooks of the torsion spring of the lanyard assembly, replace discrepant lanyard assemblies, and re-identify serviceable lanyard assemblies.

We are issuing this AD to address PSUs and life vest panels detaching from the supporting airplane structure, which could lead to passenger injuries and impede passenger and crew egress during evacuation.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the SNPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

JeJu Air requested that we consider adding actions similar to those in the SNPRM for PSU-mounted LCD panels. JeJu Air noted that they experienced an incident in which four PSU-mounted LCD panels dropped during flight, resulting in minor injuries to several passengers. JeJu Air stated that PSU-mounted LCD panels are not subject to routine inspections through a manufacturer's maintenance planning document. The commenter added that the PSU-mounted LCD panels are heavier than normal PSUs and therefore could be riskier for passengers if they fall.

We acknowledge the commenter's concern. However, making the requested change would require issuance of a second SNPRM with another public comment period, delaying the issuance of a final rule. To delay this action would be inappropriate, since we have determined that an unsafe condition exists and that PSU modifications and lanyard replacements must be made to ensure continued safety. We will consider additional rulemaking to address PSU-mounted LCD panels. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Boeing requested that we revise the applicability of the proposed AD (in the SNPRM) to The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes “as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1707, Revision 1, dated May 18, 2018.” Boeing stated that including airplanes beyond those identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1707, Revision 1, dated May 18, 2018, would not add to the safety of the operating fleet. Boeing added that airplanes with potentially affected lanyard assemblies, whether included in reworked airplanes, installed during production, or issued in kits, are all categorized and addressed in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1707, Revision 1, dated May 18, 2018.

We disagree with the commenter's request. The PSUs and lanyard assemblies are rotable parts that can be installed on airplanes that previously did not have affected PSUs and lanyard assemblies installed. Therefore, the applicability of this AD, “all The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes, certificated in any category, without a Boeing Sky Interior (BSI),” ensures that no PSUs without the updated lanyard assemblies are installed and the unsafe condition is addressed on all affected airplanes. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Boeing requested that we revise the “Differences Between This SNPRM and the Service Information” section of the SNPRM to note that the effectivity of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1707, Revision 1, dated May 18, 2018, is limited to “line numbers 1 through 6099,” rather than “line numbers 1 through 6009.”

We acknowledge this typographical error. However, the “Differences Between This SNPRM and the Service Information” section does not carry over into this AD. Therefore, we have not changed this AD in this regard.

American Airlines (AAL) requested that we remove a requirement in the proposed AD (in the SNPRM) to identify new lanyard assemblies as serviceable by adding a permanent white mark. AAL noted that Figure 1, step 3 of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1707, Revision 1, dated May 18, 2018, which is Required for Compliance (RC), says to “Identify the lanyard assembly as serviceable with a permanent white mark, that can be easily seen when the PSU is lowered.” The commenter stated that new lanyards received in certain kits are deemed serviceable, but not identified with a white mark. AAL asked why the parts would be marked at installation rather than inspection or fabrication, which seems to place the burden on installers to determine the lanyard assembly is serviceable.

We disagree with the commenter's request. Some previously delivered lanyard assembly kits contained lanyards that were manufactured incorrectly and might not properly secure the PSU in the event of an accident. By inspecting and identifying the lanyard assembly during installation, operators can ensure that the correct lanyard assembly is installed on an airplane. On some airplanes, a correct lanyard assembly may already be installed and only needs to be identified with a white mark. Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1707, Revision 1, dated May 18, 2018, clearly identifies a serviceable lanyard assembly, and the white mark is an important part of that definition. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

AAL requested that the Boeing 737NG Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) 25-23-61 provide more detailed instructions for removing and installing the PSU. AAL noted that Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1707, Revision 1, dated May 18, 2018, provides detailed instructions for attaching the lanyard clip to the PSU rail, but the AMM does not provide the same level of instructions. We infer that the commenter is asking us to require Boeing to update the AMM to provide more details.

We acknowledge the commenter's request. The AMM is identified as an affected publication in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1707, Revision 1, dated May 18, 2018; however, this AD does not require compliance with the AMM, and the AMM is not part of an RC step in the service bulletin. The AMM is referred to as one source of information for removing and installing the PSU, but as noted in paragraph (i)(4)(ii) of this AD, operators may rely on their own accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program for those steps. In addition, Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1707, Revision 1, dated May 18, 2018, provides adequate details to address the unsafe condition in this AD. Therefore, we have not changed this AD in this regard.

AAL stated that Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1707, dated September 24, 2015, provided a work-hours task total of 1.35 work-hours per PSU. The commenter added that Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1707, Revision 1, dated May 18, 2018, increased the scope of work done on the PSU, but reduced the work-hours task total to 0.4 work-hours per PSU. We infer that the commenter is suggesting that the work-hour estimates should be revised in the final rule.

We agree to clarify the Costs of Compliance section of this AD. Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1707, Revision 1, dated May 18, 2018, separates the work-hour estimates into multiple tables based on group configurations and the type of work to be done. Adding all of the work-hours from the applicable tables for a given configuration, the total work-hours estimate is higher for certain configurations. Therefore, the estimated costs in this AD represent the highest work-hours and parts cost for all configurations. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the SNPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the SNPRM.

We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 737-25-1707, Revision 1, dated May 18, 2018. This service information describes procedures for modifying the PSUs and life vest panels by replacing the existing inboard lanyard and installing two new lanyards on the outboard edge of the PSUs and life vest panels, measuring the distance between the hooks of the torsion spring of the lanyard assembly, replacing any discrepant lanyard assemblies, and re-identifying serviceable lanyard assemblies. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

We estimate that this AD affects 2,015 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all known costs in our cost estimate.

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.

This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

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 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:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Dassault Aviation Model FAN JET FALCON and FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 23, 2018 (83 FR 59326). The NPRM was prompted by a determination that new and more restrictive airworthiness limitations and maintenance requirements are necessary. The NPRM proposed to require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations and maintenance requirements. We are issuing this AD to address, among other things, fatigue cracking and damage in principal structural elements; such fatigue cracking and damage could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2018-0193, dated September 3, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Dassault Aviation Model FAN JET FALCON and FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G airplanes. The MCAI states:

The unsafe condition is fatigue cracking and damage in principal structural elements; such fatigue cracking and damage could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. Because we determined that a separate FAA AD should be issued for each airplane model due to different ALS requirements, we did not issue an AD that corresponded to EASA AD 2008-0221.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0963.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. We have considered the comment received; the commenter, Bienvenu Badinenganyi, stated no objection to the NPRM.

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

Dassault has issued Chapter 5-40-01, Airworthiness Limitations, DMD 44729, Revision 9, dated November 29, 2017, of the Dassault Aviation Falcon 20 Maintenance Manual. This service information includes life limits for certain airframe components, and describes airworthiness limitations for safe life limits and certification maintenance requirements. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

We estimate that this AD affects 61 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We have determined that revising the existing maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although we recognize that this number may vary from operator to operator. In the past, we have estimated that this action takes 1 work-hour per airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet, we have determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, we estimate the total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

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.

This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

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 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Gulfstream Aerospace LP Model Gulfstream G150 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 11, 2018 (83 FR 63596). The NPRM was prompted by reports of corrosion in the solder joints of the upper and lower front relay box connectors to the printed circuit board. The NPRM proposed to require replacement of the existing relay boxes with modified boxes.

We are issuing this AD to address corrosion in the front relay box connector solder joints. If not addressed, this condition could cause false crew alerting system (CAS) messages, such as slats unbalance, auto slats fail, and Mach trim fail, which could interfere with continued safe operation of the airplane.

The Civil Aviation Authority of Israel (CAAI), which is the aviation authority for Israel, has issued Israeli Airworthiness Directive ISR-I-24-2018-09-7, dated October 1, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Gulfstream Aerospace LP Model Gulfstream G150 airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-1006.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

Gulfstream has issued Service Bulletin 150-24-193, dated March 30, 2018. This service information describes procedures for removing and replacing the upper and lower front relay boxes. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

We estimate that this AD affects 81 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

1. On July 19, 2018, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR), 1 proposing to revise parts 45 and 46 of the Commission's regulations related to interlocking officers and directors to clarify and update the requirements for both applicants and holders. The Commission proposed to: (1) Update its regulations to reflect statutory changes to the circumstances in which an applicant who would otherwise require Commission authorization to hold an interlocking position need not do so; (2) revise its regulations to clarify its position on late-filed applications and informational reports; (3) revise its regulations to clarify that an interlock holder is not required to file a notice of change when merely changing positions within a holding company; (4) revise its regulations to state that applicants do not need to list in their applications public utilities that do not have officers or directors; (5) revise its regulations with regard to public utilities owned by a natural person; and (6) update its regulations to remove § 46.2(b), which contains definitions and phrases now rendered obsolete.

2. Comments were filed by Edison Electric Institute (EEI), NRG Power Marketing LLC (NRG), Just Energy (U.S.) Corp. (Just Energy), Electric Power Supply Association (EPSA), National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA), National Grid USA (National Grid), and Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Golden Spread). All comments were generally supportive of the proposed changes. Some commenters requested clarification on certain proposed changes, while others proposed additional changes. We address these issues below.

3. Section 45.2 of the Commission's regulations describes the types of interlocking positions that require Commission authorization, including those between a public utility and entities authorized by law to underwrite or participate in the marketing of public utility securities. 2 However, in 1999, Congress amended Federal Power Act (FPA) section 305(b)(2) to provide that an applicant for certain interlocking positions is no longer required to obtain Commission authorization to hold such positions. 3 In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to revise § 45.2 of its regulations to add that an applicant for an interlocking position between a public utility and a “bank, trust company, banking association, or firm that is authorized by law to underwrite or participate in the marketing of public utility securities,”  4 does not need Commission authorization when:

• The person does not participate in any deliberations or decisions of the public utility regarding the selection of the bank, trust company, banking association, or firm to underwrite or participate in the marketing of securities of the public utility, if the person serves as an officer or director of a bank, trust company, banking association, or firm that is under consideration in the deliberation process;

• the bank, trust company, banking association, or firm of which the person is an officer or director does not engage in the underwriting of, or participate in the marketing of, securities of the public utility of which the person holds the position of officer or director;

• the public utility for which he/she serves or proposes to serve as an officer or director selects underwriters by competitive procedures; or

• the issuance of securities of the public utility for which the person serves or proposes to serve as an officer or director has been approved by all Federal and State regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the issuance. 5

4. EEI, Golden Spread, Just Energy, and NRECA all support the Commission's proposed revision to § 45.2 of its regulations.

5. Golden Spread states in its comments that it is unclear from the NOPR if the Commission will require continued reporting of interlocking positions between a public utility and a bank, trust company, banking association, or firm that is authorized by law to underwrite or participate in the marketing of public utility securities in Form No. 561. If not, Golden Spread states that the Commission may wish to cross reference to § 45.2 or clarify § 46.5 of its regulations. 6

6. We will revise the language in § 45.2 as proposed in the NOPR, which brings the Commission's regulations into conformance with the changes made by Congress to FPA section 305(b)(2) in 1999.

7. In response to Golden Spread's comments, we clarify that the Commission will continue to require the reporting of interlocking positions between a public utility and a bank, trust company, banking association, or firm that is authorized by law to underwrite or participate in the marketing of public utility securities in Form No. 561 under § 46.5 of the Commission's regulations as the statutory directive to report such information has not changed. 7

8. The Commission proposed in the NOPR to revise § 45.3(a) of its regulations, which currently states that “late-filed applications will be denied” and § 45.9(b), which currently states that “[f]ailure to timely file the informational report will constitute a failure to satisfy this condition and will constitute automatic denial.” The Commission stated that it expects its regulations to be followed but recognizes that good faith errors and oversights may occasionally result in the inadvertent violation of the timing of FPA section 305(b)'s filing requirements. In addition, the Commission stated that it expects applicants to be attentive to their obligation to timely file for the required authorizations and make every effort to ensure they act in accordance with the statutory directives in FPA section 305(b). Further, the Commission stated that, if an error or oversight occurs, it expects that those errors and oversights will be expeditiously identified and rectified, and applications to hold interlocking director positions be promptly filed. Therefore, the Commission proposed to delete the above-quoted language, and replace it with language providing for consideration of late-filed applications for interlocking positions on a case-by-case basis. 8

9. EEI, Golden Spread, Just Energy, National Grid, NRECA, and NRG all support the Commission's proposed changes to §§ 45.3(a) and 45.9(b). EEI takes issue with the Commission's statement in the NOPR preamble that, “[i]n cases where occasional errors and oversights occur, the Commission expects that those errors and oversights will be expeditiously identified and rectified, and applications to hold interlocking director positions promptly filed.”  9 To avoid “misinterpretation,” EEI encourages the Commission to restate the quoted provision to say: “When errors and oversights are discovered, the Commission expects that those errors and oversights will be expeditiously rectified, and if required applications will be promptly filed.”  10

10. We adopt the changes to §§ 45.3(a) and 45.9(b) of the Commission's regulations proposed in the NOPR that will allow for consideration of late-filed applications for interlocking positions on a case-by-case basis. 11 We do not think that it is in the public interest to deny otherwise-qualified applicants' late-filed applications and informational filings made under these regulations when the late filing is due solely to good faith errors and oversights, and the error or oversight is promptly identified and expeditiously rectified.

11. We decline to amend our statement in the NOPR preamble to state that the Commission's expectation is that errors and oversights be expeditiously rectified “when errors and oversights are discovered,” as suggested by EEI. We expect that errors and oversights be both promptly identified and expeditiously rectified, and we reiterate our expectation—grounded in the statute  12 —that applicants be attentive to their obligation to timely file for the required authorizations and thus make every effort to ensure that they act in accordance with the statutory directives in FPA section 305(b). The Commission would look unfavorably on FPA section 305(b) applications where an applicant has not been properly attentive to his/her obligation to file for the required authorization.

Background

On March 3, 2016, the Department of the Treasury (Treasury Department) and the IRS published in the Federal Register (81 FR 11104) final and temporary regulations (TD 9755) that amended § 1.42-10 of the Income Tax Regulations. The final regulations in TD 9755 clarified the circumstances in which utility costs paid by a tenant based on actual consumption in a submetered, rent-restricted unit are treated as paid by the tenant directly to the utility company and not to the building owner. In such a case, for purposes of section 42, the tenant's payments to the owner for the utilities are not treated as payments of gross rent, and the rent that the owner might otherwise have collected for the unit is reduced by an amount that is called a “utility allowance.” The temporary regulations extended the principles of those final regulations to situations in which a building owner sold to tenants energy that was produced from a renewable source and that the owner had not purchased from or through a local utility company.

In the same issue of the Federal Register (81 FR 11160), the Treasury Department and the IRS published a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-123867-14) (the proposed regulations). The text of the proposed regulations incorporated by cross-reference the text of the temporary regulations. The Treasury Department and the IRS received written and electronic comments responding to the proposed regulations. No requests for a public hearing were made, and no public hearing was held.

After consideration of all the comments, the proposed regulations are adopted as amended by this Treasury Decision.

The temporary regulations in TD 9755 applied the submetering principles to energy that the building owner sold to tenants if the energy was “produced from a renewable source” and if the owner had acquired it from the renewable source without the intervention of a local utility company. Qualification for this submetering treatment, however, depended on the charges to the tenants for this energy being comparable to local utility rates. That is, under the temporary regulations, to the extent that tenants consumed this energy, the rate charged by the building owner could not exceed the rate at which the local utility company would have charged the tenants if they had instead acquired the energy from that company.

A commenter requested that the final regulations clarify how a building owner may demonstrate that the rate that the owner charges tenants for renewable energy satisfies this requirement (the evidentiary issue). In addition, if there are multiple local utility rates that the tenants might have been charged (possibly from multiple utility companies), the commenter asked for clarification as to which rate or rates should be taken into account in determining whether the owner's charges to the tenants qualify (the reference-rate issue).

The final regulations resolve both of these issues. Addressing the reference-rate issue, the final regulations require that the rate that the owner charges must not exceed the highest rate at which the tenants might have obtained energy from a local utility company. This criterion has several advantages over alternatives. For example, it is easily administrable (as compared, for example, with a requirement that the owner's rate not exceed the “most typical rate” in the community). Also, the criterion protects an owner's qualifying rate from being disqualified by the introduction of new rates in the community (as might be the case, for example, if the reference for the criterion were the average or median of local rates).

Regarding the evidentiary issue, in determining the acceptability of the rate that a building owner charges tenants, the owner may rely on the rates published by local utility companies.

The temporary regulations in TD 9755 provide that, for purposes of qualifying for submetering treatment, energy is “produced from a renewable source” if it is energy that is produced from energy property described in section 48; energy that is produced from a facility described in section 45(d)(1), (2), (3), (4), (6), (9), or (11); or energy that is described in guidance published for this purpose in the Internal Revenue Bulletin. Sections 45 and 48 of the Code determine whether a taxpayer is entitled to certain energy-related credits. A commenter requested that the final regulations clarify the extent to which these cross-references to “energy property” and “facility” incorporate the various requirements for earning those credits.

The final regulations clarify that the building owner need not own the source from which the utility is produced and need not qualify for, or receive, any credit under section 45 or 48 associated with the source. Indeed, energy may qualify as “produced from a renewable resource” even if potential entitlement to credits under these Code sections has expired. Thus, the final regulations clarify that they refer to “energy property” and “facility” as a means of describing certain types of production of renewable energy but that they do not also incorporate any other criteria from those Code sections.

Under section 42(g)(1) and (2), a residential unit may qualify as a low-income unit only if it is “rent-restricted.” The amount that qualifies as restricted rent is determined based on the assumption that most utilities are generally covered by that rent. See H.R. Conf. Rep. 99-841, at II-94 (1986). For that reason, if the tenant pays for a utility directly, the rent that the owner may require from the tenant is reduced. The amount of this reduction is called a “utility allowance.” See section 42(g)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1.42-10(a). Language in the preamble of TD 9755 states that utility costs paid by a tenant based on actual consumption in a submetered, rent-restricted unit are treated as paid by the tenant directly to the utility and thus do not count against the maximum rent that the building owner can charge. Referencing this language, one commenter requested that the final regulations clarify whether a building owner of a submetered building is required to reduce its maximum gross rents by the amount of a utility allowance. Because § 1.42-10(e) treats a tenant in a submetered, rent-restricted unit as having paid for a utility directly and not by or through the owner of the building, the proper treatment of the tenant's submetered utility payments is the same as if the tenant had made those payments directly to the utility company—(1) Although the payments pass through the building owner, they are not treated for purposes of the rent restriction as if they were payments of rent; and (2) The amount of rent that the owner might otherwise have demanded from the tenant is reduced by the amount of an applicable utility allowance.

This regulation is not subject to review under section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866 pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement (April 11, 2018) between the Department of the Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget regarding review of tax regulations. Therefore, a regulatory impact assessment is not required. It has also been determined that the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply because the regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, this proposed rule preceding these final regulations was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business and no comments were received.

The principal author of this regulation is James W. Rider, formerly of the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industries). However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in its development.

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:

This rulemaking project was identified as part of the Coast Guard's Regulatory Reform Task Force initiative. These District 7 field regulation changes were identified as part of the deregulation identification process required by Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs), Executive Order 13777 (Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda Deregulatory Process), and associated guidance issued in 2017. This rule provides updates and clarifications to existing regulatory text in title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 100 and 165.

This rule removes safety zones and special local regulations for regulations where the enforcement period has expired or where the event is no longer held. This rule also removes special local regulations where the event no longer meets the criteria for a permitted event and is not suitable for coverage under a special local regulation in accordance with 33 CFR 100.35. District 7 has determined that normal navigation rules cover the safety of participants and spectators at these events adequately. If a change in circumstance indicates that additional safety measures are necessary, the Coast Guard might choose to promulgate new regulations for safety zones at these events at that time.

The changes to 33 CFR part 100 are specifically authorized under 33 U.S.C. 1233, which vests the Commandant of the Coast Guard with authority to issue regulations to promote the safety of life on navigable waters during regattas or marine parades. The changes to 33 CFR part 165 are authorized under the general authority of 22 U.S.C. 1231, which grants the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security broad authority to issue, amend, or repeal regulations necessary to implement 33 U.S.C. chapter 25, Ports and Waterways Safety Program. The Secretary has delegated rulemaking authority under 33 U.S.C. 1231 to the Commandant via Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking with respect to this rule because it is unnecessary to do so. All of the changes in this final rule involve only minor amendments to existing regulations that will not result in a substantive effect on the public.

This rule removes the temporary special local regulations 33 CFR 100.T07-0110, 100.T07-0192, and 100.35T07-0297. As discussed in the preamble for each of the associated Federal Register documents implementing these temporary regulations and the corresponding regulatory text, these regulations were meant to be of limited duration. They remain in the CFR at this time because of drafting errors in the DATES section of each of the implementing final rules. “Special Local Regulation; Low Country Splash, Wando River, Cooper River, and Charleston Harbor, Charleston, SC,” 33 CFR 100.T07-0110, was meant to expire on May 24, 2014, at 9 a.m. at the conclusion of the 2014 Low Country Splash. “Special Local Regulations; Beaufort Water Festival, Beaufort, SC,” 33 CFR 100.T07-0192, was meant to expire on July 26, 2015, at 4 p.m. at the conclusion of the 2015 Beaufort Water Festival. “Special Local Regulation, 50 Aniversario Balneario de Boqueron, Bahia de Boqueron; Boqueron, PR,” 33 CFR 100.35T07-0297 was meant to expire on May 5, 2013, at 4 p.m. at the conclusion of the 50 Aniversario Balneario de Boqueron.

This rule removes the temporary safety zone regulations 33 CFR 165.T07-0040, 165.T07-0161, 165.T07-0320 and 165.T07-0347. As discussed in the preamble for each of the accompanying Federal Register documents implementing these regulations and the corresponding regulatory text, these regulations were meant to be of limited duration. They remain in the CFR at this time because of drafting errors in the DATES section of each of the implementing final rules. “Safety Zone; Cooper River Bridge Run, Charleston, SC,” 33 CFR 165.T07-0040, was meant to expire on March 28, 2015, at 10:30 a.m., at the conclusion of the 2015 Cooper River Bridge Run. “Safety Zone; Xterra Swim, Myrtle Beach, SC,” 33 CFR 165.T07-0161, was mean to expire on May 4, 2014, at 8:15 a.m., at the conclusion of the 2014 Xterra Swim. “Safety Zone; Fourth of July Fireworks North Myrtle Beach, SC,” 33 CFR 165.T07-0320, was meant to expire on July 4, 2016, at 10:00 p.m., at the conclusion of the fireworks show. “Safety Zone; Fourth of July Fireworks Murrells Inlet, SC,” 33 CFR 165.T07-0347, was meant to expire on July 4, 2016, at 10 p.m.

None of these regulations—temporary special local regulations or temporary safety zones—have been enforced past the intended expiration period.

This rule removes certain entries in the list of recurring special local regulations in Captain of the Port (COTP) Zones Miami and Key West found in the table to 33 CFR 100.701. The Coast Guard has looked into each of these events and has found no evidence to indicate that these events are still being held. The entries being removed from this list for COTP Miami are Rotary Club of Fort Lauderdale New River Raft Race, Red Bull Candola, West Palm Beach Triathlon, and West Palm Beach World Championship. The entries being removed from this list for COTP Key West are The Bogey, The Bacal, and Miami to Key Largo Sailboat Race.

This rule removes special local regulations in COTP Zone Key West where the events in question no longer meet the criteria for permitted events and, therefore, are not suitable for coverage under a special local regulation in accordance with 33 CFR 100.35. District 7 has determined that the safety of participants and spectators at these events can be adequately covered by the normal navigational rules. If a change in circumstances indicates that additional safety measures are necessary, the Coast Guard might decide at that time to promulgate regulations for safety zones for these events. The entries being removed from this list for COTP Key West in the table to 33 CFR 100.701 are Blessing of the Fleet, Wreckers Cup Races, Boot Key Harbor Christmas Boat Parade, Key Colony Beach Holiday Boat Parade, Key Largo Boat Parade, and Key West Lighted Boat Parade.

The Coast Guard is removing paragraph (d) from 33 CFR 165.778 regarding the effective period of the security zone for the Port of Mayaguez. Paragraph (d) states the section had an effective period that ended April 29, 2009. Paragraph (d) conflicts with the effective information stated in the DATES section of the issuing final rule (74 FR 14046, March 30, 2009). This rule has continuing effect and did not cease being in effect after April 29, 2009.

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

Executive Orders 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) and 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs) directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. OMB considers this rule to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. See the OMB Memorandum titled “Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771, titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs'” (April 5, 2017).

The Coast Guard is revising its regulations to provide updates and clarifications to existing regulatory text in title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 100 and 165. The revisions include the removal of temporary safety zones and special local regulations for past events, special local regulations for events no longer held and special local regulations for events no longer permitted. Normal navigation rules sufficiently cover the safety of participants and spectators at events that are no longer suitable for coverage under a special local regulation. This rule involves non-substantive changes and internal agency practices and procedures; it will not impose any additional costs on the public or the government. The qualitative benefit of the non-substantive changes is increased clarity of regulations. The increased clarity of the CFR is created by the removal of expired enforcement periods and the removal of events that are no longer held.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. This rule will not impose any impacts on any entities. This means that there will be no economic impacts on any entities. Therefore, 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.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. 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 in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this rule.

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 does not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). This rule does not change any of the burdens in the collections currently approved by OMB.

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) if it has a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, 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. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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 1 year. Although this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01, and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD (COMDTINST M16475.1D), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). Our determination is that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

This rule meets the criteria for categorical exclusion (CATEX) under paragraphs L54, L60, and L61 in Appendix A of DHS Directive 023-01. CATEX L54 pertains to promulgation of regulations that are editorial or procedural; CATEX L60 pertains to regulations for establishing, disestablishing, or changing Regulated Navigation Areas and security or safety zones; and CATEX L61 pertains to special local regulations issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade. This rule amends the Coast Guard District 7 field regulations by incorporating updates and clarifications to existing regulatory text in title 33 CFR parts 100 and 165. These changes generally pertain to removing certain obsolete special event regulations or clarifying the intended effective period of the security zone for the Port of Mayaguez (33 CFR 165.778).

The Coast Guard's Regulatory Reform Task Force Initiative identified these regulation changes, which are consistent with the Coast Guard's maritime safety and stewardship missions.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR parts 100 and 165 as follows:

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary 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. We must establish this emergency safety zone by February 26, 2019 to ensure the safety of residents and the protection of personal property near the riverfront in Smithland, Kentucky during a high water event.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be contrary to the public interest because delaying the effective period will compromise the safety of residents, vessels, and personal property near the riverfront of Smithland, Kentucky during a high water event.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) has determined a safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and personal property from potential hazards created by vessel wake during a high water event.

This rule establishes a safety zone from February 26, 2019 to March 15, 2019 or when the lower gauge at Smithland Lock and Dam falls below 50 feet, whichever occurs first. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters between mile marker 0.0 and mile marker 3.0 of the Cumberland River in Smithland, Kentucky. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the personal property in these navigable waters during the high water event. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public through broadcast notices to mariners of any changes in the planned schedule.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, duration, and location of the safety zone. This safety zone will only be enforced for 18 days on a three-mile stretch of the Cumberland River near Smithland, Kentucky, while the area is experiencing a high water event. The enforcement of the zone will be terminated once the lower gauge at Smithland Lock and Dam falls below 50 feet, whichever occurs first. While entry is prohibited, vessels may request permission from the COTP or a designated representative to enter the zone.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 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.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the temporary safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

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.

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 have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, 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. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

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.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a temporary safety zone that will cover all navigable waters between mile marker 0.0 and mile marker 3.0 of the Cumberland River in Smithland, Kentucky. The safety zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and personal property in these navigable waters during a high water event. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES .

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.

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

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

The Captain of the Port (COTP) Lake Michigan is modifying the size of the established safety zone outlined in 33 CFR 165.931 (a) to allow for the Chicago Lock to remain open during fireworks displays. The current safety zone encompasses all waters of Lake Michigan within Chicago Harbor bounded by coordinates beginning at 41°53′26.5″ N, 087°35′26.5″ W; then south to 41°53′7.6″ N, 087°35′26.3″ W; then west to 41°53′7.6″ N, 087°36′23.2″ W; then north to 41°53′26.5″ N, 087°36′24.6″ W; then east back to the point of origin (NAD 83). The safety zone in this final rule still ensures a safe distance for spectators while allowing the Chicago Lock to remain open during the duration of the fireworks. The area in this final rule encompasses all waters of Lake Michigan within Chicago Harbor bounded by coordinates beginning at 41°53′23.3″ N, 087°36′04.5″ W; then south to 41°53′11.8″ N, 087°36′04.1″ W; then west to 41°53′12.1″ N, 087°35′40.5″ W; then north to 41°53′23.6″ N, 087°35′40.07″ W; then east back to the point of origin (NAD 83).

On September 13, 2018 the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register titled Safety Zone; Chicago Harbor, Navy Pier Southeast, Chicago, IL, 33 CFR part 165 (83 FR 46449).

Included in the NPRM was an invitation to make comments on the proposed regulatory action for the modification of the size of the Navy Pier Southeast Safety Zone. The Coast Guard received 14 comments during the comment period, which ended October 15, 2018.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The COTP Lake Michigan has determined that modifying the preexisting safety zone will reduce congestion near the Chicago Lock. This rule would not significantly change the regulatory language found in 33 CFR 165.931. The change will only moderately reduce the size of the safety zone with updated coordinates, found in 33 CFR 165.931 (a). The purpose of this rule is to protect the safety of vessels and persons in the safety zone before, during, and after scheduled events while allowing the Chicago Lock to remain open for vessel traffic.

As noted above, The Coast Guard received fourteen (14) comments on our NPRM published September 13, 2018. There were ten (10) comments that supported modifying the size of the safety zone to allow the Chicago Lock and Dam to remain open, allowing vessels to proceed during the Fireworks Display. There were two (2) comments that were unrelated to the modification of the Safety Zone and two (2) comments that addressed congestion and the safety issues of modifying the size of the Safety Zone.

One of these comments misinterpreted the authority under which the safety zone is issued. The commenter refers to 50 U.S.C. 191 but that statute provides the authority for security zones. See, 33 CFR 165.9(c). As noted above in the “Legal Authority and Need for Rule” section, this rule is under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

The other comment failed to comprehend that the safety zone in this final rule does allow vessel traffic to safely proceed through the Chicago Lock without entering the safety zone. The safety zone in this final rule was evaluated and we determined that the reduction in size could be accomplished safely while allowing the Chicago Lock to remain open for vessel traffic. Allowing the Lock to remain open alleviates vessel congestion that is also a safety concern.

After review, the Coast Guard amended this final rule by updating the coordinates outlined in the NPRM to take into account applicable comments and suggestions. The new safety zone will encompass all waters of Lake Michigan within Chicago Harbor bounded by coordinates beginning at 41°53′23.3″ N, 087°36′04.5″ W; then south to 41°53′11.8″ N, 087°36′04.1″ W; then west to 41°53′12.1″ N, 087°35′40.5″ W; then north to 41°53′23.6″ N, 087°35′40.07″ W; then east back to the point of origin (NAD 83).

This rule does reduce the size of the safety zone outlined in 33 CFR 165.931 (a), but the size of the new safety zone still ensures a safe distance for spectators as well as vessels entering and exiting the locks. These new coordinates will allow vessels transiting to and from the lock to proceed North or South, while still maintaining a safe distance from the Fireworks Display. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and, pursuant to OMB guidance, it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which would impact a small designated area for less than 1 hour during the scheduled events. Indeed, this action will allow for greater transit than the pre-existing safety zone.

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

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), the Coast Guard wants 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.

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. The Coast Guard has analyzed this rule under that Order and has determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, 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. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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 discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

The Coast Guard has analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone enforced intermittently, and for no longer than the time necessary to protect vessels and persons during scheduled Fireworks Displays. It is categorically excluded from further review under L60 (a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this reduction in size of a preexisting safety zone is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES .

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.

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register LNGC Liquefied Natural Gas Carrier NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary 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)(3)(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. We must establish these security zones by February 26, 2019 and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be contrary to the public interest because immediate action is needed to provide for the security of the vessel.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with Liquefied Natural Gas Carrier (LNGC) MARAN GAS MYSTRAS between February 28, 2019 and March 15, 2019 will be a security concern while the vessel is moored at the receiving facility and within a 500-yard radius of the vessel while the vessel is loaded with cargo.

This rule establishes two security zones around LNGC MARAN GAS MYSTRAS from February 28, 2019 through March 15, 2019. A fixed security zone will be in effect in the mooring basin bound by 27°52′53.38″ N, 097°16′20.66″ W on the northern shoreline; thence to 27°52′45.58″ N, 097°16′19.60″ W; thence to 27°52′38.55″ N, 097°15′45.56″ W; thence to 27°52′49.30″ N, 097°15′45.44″ W; thence west along the shoreline to 27°52′53.38″ N, 097°16′20.66″ W, while LNGC MARAN GAS MYSTRAS is moored. A moving security zone will cover all navigable waters within a 500-yard radius of the LNGC MARAN GAS MYSTRAS while the vessel transits outbound with cargo through the La Quinta Channel and Corpus Christi Ship Channel. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the security zones without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

Entry into these security zones is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector Corpus Christi. Persons or vessels desiring to enter or pass through the zones must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative on VHF-FM channel 16 or by telephone at 361-939-0450. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs) of the enforcement times and dates for these security zones.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, duration, and location of the security zone. This rule will impact a small designated area of the Corpus Christi Ship Channel and La Quinta Channel while the vessel is moored at the receiving facility and during the vessel's transit while loaded with cargo. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue BNMs via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zones and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zones.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 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.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the temporary moving security zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

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.

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 have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, 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. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

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.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a temporary fixed security zone while LNGC MARAN GAS MYSTRAS is moored at the receiving facility mooring basin bound by 27°52′53.38″ N, 097°16′20.66″ W on the northern shoreline; thence to 27°52′45.58″ N, 097°16′19.60″ W; thence to 27°52′38.55″ N, 097°15′45.56″ W; thence to 27°52′49.30″ N, 097°15′45.44″ W; thence west along the shoreline to 27°52′53.38″ N, 097°16′20.66″ W, and a temporary moving security zone while the vessel transits with cargo within the La Quinta Channel and Corpus Christi Ship Channel, that will prohibit entry within 500-yard radius of LNGC MARAN GAS MYSTRAS. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES .

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.

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

On February 24, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” which established a Federal policy “to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens” on the American people. Section 3(a) of the Executive Order directed each Federal agency to establish a regulatory reform task force, the duty of which is to evaluate existing regulations and “make recommendations to the agency head regarding their repeal, replacement, or modification.” Accordingly, the Secretary removes 34 CFR part 400, §§ 401.1-401.22 and 401.30 and 401.31, and parts 402, 403, 406, 410, 411 and 413, published in the Federal Register on August 14, 1992 (57 FR 36720) (Perkins 1992 Regulations), because they are outdated due to the reauthorization of the Perkins Act by subsequent reauthorizations and changes to the Perkins Act. The program regulations we are removing are:

The State-Administered Tech-Prep Education Program was not re-authorized in the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act (Perkins V) that was signed on July 31, 2018, and takes effect July 1, 2019. As such, we are removing the related regulations in 34 CFR part 406. Generally, the regulations for the other seven programs listed in the above chart are outdated due to the passage of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998 (Perkins III). These seven programs were updated in Perkins III and subsequently in the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (Perkins IV) and Perkins V. However, the regulations related to these seven programs, have not been updated to reflect statutory changes in Perkins III-V, so we are removing those regulations. Although the statutory authority still exists for these seven program (not including The State-Administered Tech-Prep Education Program, which was not re-authorized), the regulations are outdated and do not reflect the most current statutory language. Therefore, we are removing those regulations, with the exception of 34 CFR 401.1 (formerly 401.23), which still applies to the Native American Career and Technical Education Program (NACTEP).

The requirements in 34 CFR 401.1 (formerly 401.23), regarding the Secretary's decision not to make an award under the Indian Vocational Education Program (now NACTEP) subject to a hearing, are not outdated. NACTEP is one of the successor programs to the Indian Vocational Education Program, and was established in Perkins IV.

The purpose of the Vocational and Applied Technology Education Programs was to make the United States more competitive in the world economy by developing more fully the academic and occupational skills of all segments of the population, and the purpose would be achieved principally through concentrating resources on improving educational programs leading to academic and occupational skill competencies needed to work in a technologically advanced society.

This Perkins II regulation provided such general program provisions as the following:

(1) Purposes, which aligned with the purposes in Sec. 2 of Perkins II and were superseded by the purposes of Sec. 2 of Perkins III and subsequently by Sec. 2 of Perkins IV and Perkins V, respectively.

(2) Definitions, which aligned with the definitions in Secs. 232(d), 347, 371, 390, and 521 of Perkins II, and were superseded by the definitions in Sec. 3 of Perkins III; and subsequently by the definitions in Sec. 3 of Perkins IV, and Perkins V, respectively.

(3) Conditions for which funds under the Perkins Act were to be used for the joint funding of programs, which aligned with joint funding requirements in Sec. 511 of Perkins II, and were superseded by the joint funding requirements in Sec. 321 of Perkins III. Those requirements were subsequently superseded by Sec. 321 of Perkins IV, and Sec. 221 of Perkins V.

(4) Requirements for establishing the State Committee of Practitioners (Committee), aligned with Sec. 115 of Perkins II, which further clarified the State board convene the Committee on a regular basis to review, comment on, and propose revisions on a draft State proposal that the State board developed for a system of core standards and measures of performance for vocational programs. Perkins III did not include a requirement for establishing the Committee, and superseded that requirement in Sec. 113(b) indicating that each eligible agency, with input from eligible recipients, shall establish performance measures for a State. That requirement for establishing performance measures for a State with input from eligible recipients was subsequently superseded in Sec. 113(b) of Perkins IV, which was reauthorized in Perkins V.

(5) Governing student assistance, aligned with Sec. 507 of Perkins II regarding student assistance costs and was superseded by the requirement for student assistance costs in Sec. 325 of Perkins III. The requirement regarding student assistance costs was subsequently superseded by Sec. 324 of Perkins IV and Sec. 224 of Perkins V.

The purpose of the Indian Vocational Education Program was to provide financial assistance to projects that provide vocational education for the benefit of Indians. The regulations provided such general provisions as the definitions relative to the program, eligibility for a program award, and what activities could be funded. In addition, the regulations specified how one applied for an award, how the Secretary made the award, and what conditions must be met after the award. The regulations aligned with Sec. 103 of Perkins II, which provided directions to the Secretary to enter into grants with eligible applicants. Sec. 103 of Perkins II was updated by Perkins III, Sec. 116—Native American programs, under which grants were awarded under the Native American Vocational and Technical Education program. The requirements were subsequently updated by Perkins IV, Sec. 116—Native American programs, under which grants were awarded for NACTEP. Recently, Perkins V Sec. 116—Native American programs, also made minor revisions and updates to the NACTEP program. Although there have been minor revisions and updates under each reauthorization of the Perkins Act regarding some of the program requirements, the program purpose and administration supporting grants to improve CTE programs that benefit Native Americans has remained the same.

Title 34 CFR 401.1 (formerly 401.23) remains in effect, as it contains the requirements for when an applicant requests a hearing in response to the Secretary's decision not to make an award under the Indian Vocational Education Program, as reauthorized (as NACTEP) under Sec. 116(b)(2) of Perkins V. The Secretary continues to implement the appeal process at the request of any applicant denied funding under the NACTEP competition in accordance with the procedures set forth in 34 CFR 401.1 (formerly 401.23) (see 83 FR 5076, 5079 at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-02-05/pdf/2018-02246.pdf ). In accordance with those procedures, any applicant denied funding has 30 calendar days to make a written request to the Secretary for a hearing to review the Secretary's decision (25 U.S.C. 5321(b)). We have also made the following technical revisions to § 401.1 (formerly § 401.23): (1) Replaced “Indian Vocational Education Program” with “Native American Career and Technical Education Program” in the title; (2) deleted reference to 34 CFR 401.2(a)(1), as this has been removed; and (3) replaced reference to “Office of Vocational and Adult Education” with “Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education”.

The purpose of the Native Hawaiian Vocational Education Program was to provide financial assistance to projects responsible for vocational training and related activities for the benefit of native Hawaiians. This regulation provided such general provisions as the definitions relative to the program, eligibility for a program award, and what activities could be funded. In addition, the regulation specified how the Secretary made the award and what conditions must be met by a grantee after the award. This regulation aligned with Sec. 103 of Perkins II, which provided directions to the Secretary to enter into grants with eligible applicants. Sec. 103 of Perkins II was updated by Perkins III, Sec. 116—Native American programs, under which grants were awarded for the Native Hawaiian Vocational and Technical Education program. The requirement in Perkins III was subsequently updated by Sec. 116—Native American programs of Perkins IV, under which grants were awarded for the Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education program, and was also superseded by Perkins V Sec. 116—Native American programs. Specifically, in Sec. 116(h) of Perkins III, and subsequently in Sec. 116(h) of Perkins IV and Perkins V, it was clarified that grants to plan, conduct, and administer programs, or portions thereof that are consistent with the purposes of section 116 of each Act, were for the benefit of Native Hawaiians.

The purpose of the State Vocational and Applied Technology Education Program was for the Secretary to assist States, local educational agencies, postsecondary educational institutions, and other agencies and institutions to administer and conduct vocational education programs that were authorized by Perkins II. The requirements in the Perkins II regulations for the State Vocational and Applied Technology Education Program aligned with Title I—Vocational Education Assistance to the States in Perkins II, Part A—Allotment and Allocation and Part B—State Organizational and Planning Responsibilities. The Perkins II requirements were superseded by requirements under Perkins III, Title I—Vocational and Technical Education Assistance to the States—Part A—Allotment and Allocation, Part B—State Provisions and Part C—Local Provisions. The Perkins III requirements were subsequently superseded by requirements in Title I—Career and Technical Education Assistance to the States Part A—Allotment and Allocation, Part B—State Provisions and Part C—Local Provisions under both Perkins IV and Perkins V.

The purposes of the Tech-Prep Education Program were to: (1) Plan for and develop four-year or six-year programs designed to provide a tech-prep education program leading to a two-year associate degree or certificate; and (2) plan and develop comprehensive links between secondary schools and postsecondary educational institutions. The requirements in the Perkins II regulations for the State-Administered Tech-Prep Education Program aligned with Title III, Part E—Tech-Prep Education. The Perkins II requirements were superseded by Title II—Tech-Prep Education under Perkins III and Perkins IV, respectively. Beginning in fiscal year 2010, Federal appropriations for Title II—Tech-Prep Education under Perkins IV ceased, and Perkins V did not authorize the program.

The purpose of the Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Vocational Institutions Program was to provide grants for the operation and improvement of tribally controlled postsecondary vocational institutions in order to continue and expand educational opportunities for Indian students, and improve and expand the physical resources of those institutions. This regulation provided such general provisions as the definitions relative to the program, eligibility for a program award, and what activities could be funded. In addition, the regulation specified how the Secretary made the award and what conditions must be met after the award. This regulation aligned with Perkins II, Title III—Special Programs—Part H—Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Vocational Institutions. The requirements in Perkins II were updated by Perkins III, Sec. 117—Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Vocational Institutions, and subsequently updated by Sec. 117—Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Career and Technical Institutions of Perkins IV and Perkins V.

The purpose of the Vocational Education Research Program was to: (1) Improve access to vocational educational programs for individuals with disabilities, individuals who were disadvantaged, men and women who were entering nontraditional occupations, adults who were in need of retraining, single parents, displaced homemakers, single pregnant women, individuals with limited English proficiency, and individuals who were incarcerated in correctional institutions; (2) support research and development activities that make the United States competitive in the world economy; (3) improve the competitive process by which research projects were awarded; (4) support the dissemination of findings of research related to Department-funded projects; and (5) support research activities that were readily applicable to the vocational education setting. This regulation indicated how the Secretary made an award, and was aligned with Sec. 402—Research Objectives and Sec. 403—Research Activities of Perkins II. The requirements in Perkins II was superseded by Perkins III, Sec. 114(c)—Research, Development, Dissemination, Evaluation and Assessment, which indicated that the Secretary through grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements, carry out research, development, dissemination, evaluation and assessment, capacity building, and technical assistance with regard to vocational and technical education programs. Sec. 114(c) of Perkins III was subsequently superseded by Perkins IV and Perkins V, Sec. 114(c)—Single Plan for Research, Development, Dissemination, Evaluation, and Assessment. That section indicated that the Secretary may directly, or through grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements, carry out research, development, dissemination, evaluation and assessment, capacity building, and technical assistance with regard to career and technical education programs.

The purpose of the National Centers for Research in Vocational Education was to support: (1) Applied research; and (2) development and dissemination and training for vocational education. This regulation provided such general provisions as the definitions relative to the program, eligibility for a program award, and what activities could be funded. In addition, the regulation specified how the Secretary made the award and what conditions must be met after the award. The regulation aligned with Perkins II, Sec. 404—National Center or Centers for Research in Vocational Education. This Perkins II section was superseded by Sec. 114(c)(5) of Perkins III, which established the requirements for a national research center or centers, and was subsequently superseded by the requirements in Sec. 114(d)(4) of Perkins IV to establish a national research center. The Perkins IV, Sec. 114(d)(4) requirements were superseded by Sec. 114(d)(4) of Perkins V, which requires that the Secretary, after consultation with the Director of the Institute of Education Sciences, the Commissioner for Education Research, and the States, to award a grant, contract, or cooperative agreement, to carry out research activities.

Under the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 553) (APA), the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed regulations. However, the APA provides that an agency is not required to conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking when the agency, for good cause, finds that the requirement is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3)). There is good cause to waive rulemaking in this case because this final regulatory action merely removes regulations that are superseded by statute and, therefore, outdated and unnecessary. This regulatory action adopts no new regulations and does not establish or affect substantive policy. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Secretary has determined that proposed regulations are unnecessary, and, thus, waives notice and comment rulemaking.

The APA also requires that regulations be published at least 30 days before their effective date, unless the agency has good cause to implement its regulations sooner (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)). Because the final regulations merely reflect statutory changes and remove outdated or unnecessary regulatory provisions, the Secretary has good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of these regulatory changes under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);

(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement 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 stated in the Executive order.

This regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

Under Executive Order 13771, for each new regulation that the Department proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates that is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, it must identify two deregulatory actions. For FY 2019, no regulations exceeding the agency's total incremental cost allowance will be permitted. These regulations are a deregulatory action under E.O. 13771 and therefore the two-for-one requirements of E.O. 13771 do not apply.

We have also reviewed these regulations under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);

(2) Tailor their regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things, and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;

(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);

(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and

(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.

Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”

We are issuing this regulatory action only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected the approach that maximizes net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that these regulations are consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.

We also have determined that this regulatory action would not unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

This regulatory action is necessary to comply with Executive Order 13777 and to remove outdated and superseded regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations.

This regulatory action is a benefit to the public, grant recipients, and the Department as the action will remove any confusion that might be caused by maintaining outdated and superseded regulations in the CFR.

The Department has also analyzed the costs of this regulatory action and has determined that it will impose no additional costs. As detailed earlier, this regulatory action removes outdated and superseded regulations for eight programs.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(2), the Regulatory Flexibility Act applies only to rules for which an agency publishes a general notice of proposed rulemaking. The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply to this rulemaking because there is good cause to waive notice and comment under 5 U.S.C. 553.

This rule does not contain any new information collection requirements. The information collection OMB Control Number 1830-0503, active during the Perkins II regulations with an annual cost to the Federal Government of $94,160, expired March 31, 2010. The only previously OMB-approved information collection under the Perkins II regulations that has been renewed, updated, and remains currently active is OMB Control Number 1830-0029. This information is used for the Perkins State Plan Guide and expires on September 30, 2019.

Some of these programs are subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.

Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format ( e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations at: www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register , in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, and under the authority of section 414 of the Department of Education Organization Act, 20 U.S.C. 3474, and section 437 of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1221e-3), the Secretary of Education amends chapter IV of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. The term “the Commonwealth” refers to Massachusetts.

On December 4, 2018, (83 FR 62532), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The NPRM proposed approval of a 2011 base year emissions inventory, an emissions statement certification, revisions to an existing stationary source registration program, and requirements to be undertaken during air pollution emergencies. The 2011 emissions inventory and the emissions statement certification submittals were made to meet, in part, requirements for marginal nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The Commonwealth revised its stationary source registration program primarily to match the lead reporting threshold within 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. Massachusetts submitted its regulation governing procedures during air pollution emergencies to meet the infrastructure planning requirement found within section 110(a)(2)(G) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Other specific requirements of the Commonwealth's SIP revisions and the rationale for our proposed action are explained in the NPRM and will not be restated here.

We did not receive any comments on our NPRM.

EPA is approving SIP revisions submitted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts representing a 2011 base year emissions inventory, an emissions statement certification, and revisions to 310 CMR 7.12, Source Registration. We are also converting our previous conditional approval of 310 CMR 8.00, The Prevention and/or Abatement of Air Pollution Episodes and Air Pollution Incident Emergencies, to a full approval.

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of 310 CMR 7.12, Source Registration, and 310 CMR 8.00, The Prevention and/or Abatement of Air Pollution Episodes and Air Pollution Incident Emergencies, described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 1 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation. 1

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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

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 May 3, 2019. 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 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

Regulations implemented under the authority of the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq. ) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. ) governing the harvest of BFT by persons and vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction are found at 50 CFR part 635. Section 635.27 subdivides the U.S. BFT quota recommended by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) among the various domestic fishing categories, per the allocations established in the 2006 Consolidated Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan (2006 Consolidated HMS FMP) (71 FR 58058, October 2, 2006) and amendments.

NMFS is required, under § 635.28(a)(1), to file a closure notice with the Office of the Federal Register for publication when a BFT quota (or subquota) is reached or is projected to be reached. On and after the effective date and time of such notification, for the remainder of the fishing year or for a specified period as indicated in the notification, retaining, possessing, or landing BFT under that quota category is prohibited until the opening of the subsequent quota period or until such date as specified in the notice.

The base quota for the General category is 555.7 mt. See § 635.27(a). Each of the General category time periods (January, June through August, September, October through November, and December) is allocated a subquota or portion of the annual General category quota. Although it is called the “January” subquota, the regulations allow the General category fishery under this quota to continue until the subquota is reached or March 31, whichever comes first. The baseline subquotas for each time period are as follows: 29.5 mt for January; 277.9 mt for June through August; 147.3 mt for September; 72.2 mt for October through November; and 28.9 mt for December. Any unused General category quota rolls forward from one time period to the next and is available for use in subsequent time periods within the fishing year. Effective January 1, 2019, NMFS transferred 19.5 mt of the 28.9-mt General category quota allocated for the December 2019 period to the January 2019 period, resulting in an adjusted subquota of 49 mt for the January period and a subquota of 9.4 mt for the December 2019 period (83 FR 67140, December 28, 2018). Effective February 8, 2019, NMFS transferred 26 mt from the Reserve category to the General category January 2019 subquota period, resulting in an adjusted subquota of 75 mt for the January period and 3.5 mt for the Reserve category (84 FR 3724, February 13, 2019). Effective February 25, 2019, NMFS transferred an additional 25 mt from the Reserve category to the General category, in the same notice as NMFS made the annual reallocation of Purse Seine category quota to the Reserve category, resulting in an adjusted subquota of 100 mt for the General category 2019 January subquota period and 143 mt for the Reserve category (FR document 2019-03554 filed for public inspection, February 25, 2019).

Based on the best available landings information for the General category BFT fishery, NMFS has determined that the adjusted General category January 2019 subquota of 100 mt has been reached ( i.e., as of February 27, reported landings total approximately 97 mt) and that the General category fishery should be closed. Therefore, retaining, possessing, or landing large medium or giant BFT by persons aboard vessels permitted in the Atlantic tunas General category and the HMS Charter/Headboat category (while fishing commercially) must cease at 11:30 p.m. local time on February 28, 2019. The General category will reopen automatically on June 1, 2019, for the June through August 2019. This action applies to Atlantic tunas General category (commercial) permitted vessels and HMS Charter/Headboat category permitted vessels with a commercial sale endorsement when fishing commercially for BFT and is taken consistent with the regulations at § 635.28(a)(1). The intent of this closure is to prevent overharvest of the available January subquota.

Fishermen may catch and release (or tag and release) BFT of all sizes, subject to the requirements of the catch-and-release and tag-and-release programs at § 635.26. All BFT that are released must be handled in a manner that will maximize their survival, and without removing the fish from the water, consistent with requirements at § 635.21(a)(1). For additional information on safe handling, see the “Careful Catch and Release” brochure available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/outreach-and-education/careful-catch-and-release-brochure/ .

NMFS will continue to monitor the BFT fisheries closely. Dealers are required to submit landing reports within 24 hours of a dealer receiving BFT. Late reporting by dealers compromises NMFS' ability to timely implement actions such as quota and retention limit adjustment, as well as closures, and may result in enforcement actions. Additionally, and separate from the dealer reporting requirement, General and HMS Charter/Headboat category vessel owners are required to report the catch of all BFT retained or discarded dead within 24 hours of the landing(s) or end of each trip, by accessing hmspermits.noaa.gov, using the HMS Catch Reporting app, or calling (888) 872-8862 (Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. until 4:30 p.m.).

Depending on the level of fishing effort and catch rates of BFT, NMFS may determine that additional adjustments are necessary to ensure available subquotas are not exceeded or to enhance scientific data collection from, and fishing opportunities in, all geographic areas. If needed, subsequent adjustments will be published in the Federal Register . In addition, fishermen may call the Atlantic Tunas Information Line at (978) 281-9260, or access hmspermits.noaa.gov, for updates on quota monitoring and inseason adjustments.

The Assistant Administrator for NMFS (AA) finds that it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to provide prior notice of, and an opportunity for public comment on, this action for the following reasons:

The regulations implementing the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and amendments provide for inseason retention limit adjustments and fishery closures to respond to the unpredictable nature of BFT availability on the fishing grounds, the migratory nature of this species, and the regional variations in the BFT fishery. These fisheries are currently underway and delaying this action would be contrary to the public interest as it could result in BFT landings further exceeding the January subquota, which could result in the need to reduce quota for the General category later in the year and thus could affect later fishing opportunities. Therefore, the AA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment. For all of the above reasons, there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness.

This action is being taken under § 635.28(a)(1) (BFT fishery closures), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. Regulations governing sideboard protections for GOA groundfish fisheries appear at subpart B of 50 CFR part 680.

The A season allowance of the 2019 Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) apportioned to catcher vessels greater than or equal to 50 feet LOA using hook-and-line gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA is 319 metric tons (mt), as established by the final 2018 and 2019 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (83 FR 8768, March 1, 2018).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) has determined that the A season allowance of the 2019 Pacific cod TAC apportioned to catcher vessels greater than or equal to 50 feet LOA using hook-and-line gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 259 mt and is setting aside the remaining 60 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels greater than or equal to 50 feet LOA using hook-and-line gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. While this closure is effective the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the directed fishing closure of Pacific cod by catcher vessels greater than or equal to 50 feet LOA using hook-and-line gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of February 26, 2019.

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.