Background

The Food for Progress Program provides for the donation of U.S. agricultural commodities to developing countries and emerging democracies committed to introducing and expanding free enterprise in the agricultural sector. The commodities are generally sold on the local market and the proceeds are used to support agricultural development activities. The program has two principal objectives: To improve agricultural productivity and expand trade in agricultural products. The Food for Progress Program is authorized in section 1110 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (also known as the Food for Progress Act of 1985) (7 U.S.C. 1736o).

The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) implements the Food for Progress Program on behalf of CCC. FAS uses the regulations in 7 CFR part 1499, Food for Progress Program, in the administration of the Food for Progress Program. The previous version of the regulations was published as a final rule on September 12, 2016 (81 FR 62603).

FAS, on behalf of CCC, is amending the Food for Progress Program regulations in 7 CFR part 1499 through this final rule to implement a change made by the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-334) to the Food for Progress Act of 1985, which added colleges and universities, as defined in 7 U.S.C. 3103(4), to the list of entities eligible for awards under the program. FAS is adding the definition “ College or university ” to section 1499.2 and amending sections 1499.1(d), (f)(1), and (g)(1), and 1499.3(a) to implement this statutory change. The change will foster greater competition in proposal submissions and provide an opportunity for more innovative projects to be considered.

In addition, FAS is amending the regulations to make changes that are technical in nature and intended to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Food for Progress Program, including the following:

(1) Clarifying that regulatory provisions that are generally applicable to CCC apply to the Food for Progress Program (7 CFR 1499.1(c)).

(2) Clarifying that provisions specified by CCC during the negotiation of an agreement, which are in addition to provisions required by the regulations, will be included in the agreement but will not necessarily be in the plan of operation component of the agreement (7 CFR 1499.5(d)).

(3) Bringing the language in the regulations into better alignment with references in the Food for Progress Act of 1985 (7 CFR 1499.5(e)(1) and (e)(4)).

(4) Clarifying that the required assertion by a recipient that adequate transportation and storage facilities will be available in the target country refers to the time of arrival of the commodities in the target country (7 CFR 1499.5(e)(5)).

(5) Modifying references to economic sanction programs to allow for situations in which a U.S. Government economic sanction program is not country-specific (7 CFR 1499.11(e) and 1499.14(b)(2)).

(6) Replacing the specific reference to a percentage of the “Grand Total Costs” in the agreement budget with a more general reference to the amount specified in the agreement, which would allow CCC to make a change to the budget format if it determines that it would be beneficial (7 CFR 1499.11(h)(1)).

(7) Allowing CCC to specify in the agreement the circumstances in which a recipient must submit to CCC a contract with a provider of goods, services, or construction work (7 CFR 1499.11(k)).

(8) Allowing for the possibility that there might not be any closeout and post-closeout provisions specified in an agreement and that only those provisions in 2 CFR 200.343 and 200.344 would apply (7 CFR 1499.16(b)(3)).

(9) Modifying language to reflect that FAS personnel who act on behalf of CCC to make determinations under the Food for Progress Program are not necessarily CCC officials but are acting under delegated authority (7 CFR 1499.17(b) and (c)).

This rule is being issued as a final rule without prior notice and opportunity for comment. The Administrative Procedure Act exempts rules “relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts” from the statutory requirement for prior notice and opportunity for comment (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)). Accordingly, this rule may be made effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . However, members of the public may participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. CCC will consider the comments received and may conduct additional rulemaking based on the comments. Written comments must be received by CCC or carry a postmark or equivalent no later than September 27, 2019.

The program covered by this regulation is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) under the following FAS CFDA number: 10.606, Food for Progress.

CCC is committed to complying with the E-Government Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. chapter 36), to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizens' access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

This rule is issued in conformance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” It has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule as not a major rule, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

This rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform.” This rule does not preempt State or local laws, regulations, or policies unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. This rule will not be retroactive.

Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” requires consultation with officials of State and local governments that would be directly affected by the proposed Federal financial assistance. The objectives of the Executive Order are to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism by relying on State and local processes for the State and local government coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance and direct Federal development. This rule will not directly affect State or local officials and, for this reason, it is excluded from the scope of Executive Order 12372.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule that is subject to notice and comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or any other law, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply to this rule because CCC is not required by the APA or any other law to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking with respect to the subject matter of the rule.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13132, “Federalism.” This rule will not have any substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the Federal government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, except as required by law. This rule does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments. Therefore, consultation with the States was not required.

This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects 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. CCC does not expect this rule to have any effect on Indian tribes.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) does not apply to this rule because it does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under the UMRA.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Commodity Credit Corporation amends part 1499 of title 7 of the Code of Regulations as follows:

On July 19, 2018, SBA announced the availability of the 504 Rural Pilot for a two-year period, through July 20, 2020. See 83 FR 34021. In the notification, SBA explained that there has been a significant decline in the number of rural CDCs since 2013 and that SBA developed the 504 Rural Pilot to increase 504 lending in rural areas by allowing CDCs to make loans outside their Area of Operations. Specifically, the 504 Rural Pilot allows CDCs to make loans for 504 Projects with an address located in any county classified as “rural” by the U.S. Census Bureau if the 504 Project is located in the same SBA Region in which the CDC is incorporated.

Between July 19, 2018 and June 1, 2019, eight loans, in the aggregate amount of $2,983,000, have been approved under the 504 Rural Pilot. These loans range in size from $70,000 to $1,036,000 and are providing assistance for projects located in communities with populations that range in size from 276 to 34,538. From the size of the communities served, the pilot is beginning to reach communities that are hard to serve due to population size.

SBA would like to extend the time period of the 504 Rural Pilot to give CDCs more time to market the 504 Program in eligible rural areas. Because it takes time and additional investment for CDCs to market in new areas, CDCs have requested that the pilot be extended. By providing more time for CDCs to develop loan awareness and activity in the rural communities within their regions, SBA hopes that CDCs will be able to generate more new loans to assist rural businesses. Accordingly, SBA has decided to extend the pilot through September 30, 2021.

In addition, for purposes of this pilot, a rural county is currently defined as a county classified as “mostly rural” or “completely rural” by the U.S. Census Bureau in its most recent decennial census report. SBA is hereby modifying the definition of a “rural county” for purposes of this pilot to include any county that the U.S. Census Bureau classifies as greater than or equal to 30% rural in its most recent decennial census report. This definition will apply to any loan approved on or after August 28, 2019 under this pilot. These counties are identified in the County Classification Lookup Table that can be downloaded at https://www.sba.gov/about-sba/sba-initiatives/sba-rural-lending-initiative or on the Welcome Screen for the Capital Access Financial System (CAFS). SBA believes that the expanded definition of “rural county” will encourage more lending through the pilot and will bring capital to these underserved areas. Further, this change will align this pilot with the definition of rural that is used in the 7(a) and 504 loan programs. CDCs must continue to use the U.S. Census Bureau table for purposes of identifying the rural counties that are eligible for the 504 Rural Pilot. The terms and conditions of the pilot are otherwise unchanged.

As described in the original notification of this pilot ( see 83 FR 34021), SBA will continue to use the following criteria to evaluate the 504 Rural Pilot to determine how well it is achieving its objectives and other aspects of performance: (1) The measurable objectives to be achieved through the 504 Rural Pilot, including the number of small business concerns served, and the delinquency and default rates on the 504 Rural Pilot loans compared to regular 504 loans; (2) the number of CDCs that participate in the 504 Rural Pilot and their performance in making and servicing 504 Rural Pilot loans; and (3) the costs and standards of performance which, in order to be acceptable, must not impact the overall subsidy rate for the 504 Loan Program.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2018-20-06, Amendment 39-19440 (83 FR 49265, October 1, 2018) (“AD 2018-20-06”). AD 2018-20-06 applied to certain Airbus SAS Model A300 F4-600R series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 7, 2019 (84 FR 19881). The NPRM was prompted by a report of two adjacent frame forks that were found cracked on the aft LDCD of two airplanes during scheduled maintenance, and a determination that certain compliance times need to be revised. The NPRM proposed to continue to require the actions of AD 2018-20-06 and also to require new compliance times, depending on frame fork configuration. The FAA is issuing this AD to address cracked or ruptured aft LDCD frames, which could allow loads to be transferred to the remaining structural elements. This condition could lead to the rupture of one or more vertical aft LDCD frames, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the aft LDCD.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2018-0266, dated December 11, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A300 F4-600R series 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-2019-0257.

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

FedEx stated agreement that this AD is required to maintain the continued airworthiness and safety of its fleet.

Airbus requested clarification as to why the proposed AD referenced Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A52W011-15, even though the MCAI no longer references Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A52W011-15, Revision 00, dated July 23, 2015 (“Airbus All Operators Transmission A52W011-15”), as it had in previous versions of the EASA ADs. Airbus pointed out that the MCAI no longer references Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A52W011-15, and now only references Airbus Service Bulletin A300-52-6086, Revision 01, dated May 2, 2018 (“Airbus Service Bulletin A300-52-6086”). Further, Airbus noted that the proposed AD retained the reference to Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A52W011-15.

The FAA acknowledges that the MCAI does not reference Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A52W011-15, and that the proposed AD retained this reference. We determined that, for the purposes of this AD, the inclusion of Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A52W011-15 is necessary to meet the requirements of this AD. The FAA carries over previous requirements for several reasons, including: To provide credit to operators who have already complied with the service information, to reduce the need for alternative method of compliance (AMOC) requests, and to prevent situations where operators could potentially be put out of compliance. For these reasons, the FAA has determined that this AD should include reference to Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A52W011-15. No changes have been made to this AD in this regard.

The FAA 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. The FAA has 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.

This AD requires Airbus Service Bulletin A300-52-6085, Revision 01, dated May 2, 2018; and Airbus Service Bulletin A300-52-6086, Revision 01, dated May 29, 2018; which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of November 5, 2018 (83 FR 49265, October 1, 2018).

This AD also requires Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A52W011-15, Revision 00, including Appendices 1, 2, 3, and 4, dated July 23, 2015, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of January 26, 2017 (81 FR 93801, December 22, 2016).

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.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 58 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The new requirements of this AD add no additional economic burden.

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of any required actions. The FAA has 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.

The FAA is 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.

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

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

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

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

(3) 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:

The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019-0014, dated January 29, 2019 (“EASA AD 2019-0014”) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Model A300-600 and A310 series airplanes.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2016-07-22, Amendment 39-18467 (81 FR 21236, April 11, 2016) (“AD 2016-07-22”). AD 2016-07-22 applied to all Model A300-600 and A310 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 7, 2019 (84 FR 19888). The NPRM was prompted by reports of insufficient clearance for the electrical wiring bundles in the leading and trailing edges of the RH and LH wings. The NPRM proposed to retain the requirements of AD 2016-07-22 and, for certain airplanes, add a requirement to further modify the electrical installations in both wings. The FAA is issuing this AD to address insufficient clearance between wing structures and electrical wiring, which could lead to chafing damage and arcing, possibly resulting in an on-board fire. See the MCAI for additional background information.

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

The FAA 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. The FAA has 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.

Although this AD does not explicitly restate the requirements of AD 2016-07-22, this AD would retain all of the requirements of AD 2016-07-22. Those requirements are referenced in EASA AD 2019-0014, which, in turn, is referenced in paragraph (g) of this AD.

EASA AD 2019-0014 describes procedures for modifying the electrical installations in both wings (RH and LH). This material 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, and it is publicly available through the EASA website.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 123 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates 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. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, the FAA has included all known costs in the 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.

The FAA is 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.

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

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

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

2. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

3. 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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2017-11-09, Amendment 39-18908 (82 FR 24462, May 30, 2017) (“AD 2017-11-09”). AD 2017-11-09 applied to certain serial-numbered Learjet Model 60 airplanes with either a dorsal-mounted oxygen bottle or with a retained oxygen line fairing installed on top of the fuselage after removing the dorsal-mounted oxygen bottle. AD 2017-11-09 required a one-time fluorescent dye penetrant inspection of the fuselage skin for corrosion and reporting the results of the inspection to the FAA. AD 2017-11-09 resulted from an evaluation by the design approval holder that indicated the upper fuselage skin under the aft oxygen line fairing is subject to multi-site damage. The FAA issued AD 2017-11-09 to detect and correct corrosion of the fuselage skin, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

AD 2017-11-09 superseded AD 2017-08-07, Amendment 39-18856 (82 FR 18084, April 17, 2017) (“2017-08-07”). AD 2017-11-09 retained all of the actions of AD 2017-08-07 but revised the applicability to include only those airplanes with a dorsal-mounted oxygen bottle or airplanes with a retained the oxygen line fairing installed on top of the fuselage after removing the dorsal-mounted oxygen bottle. AD 2017-11-09 was prompted by the FAA's determination that only certain airplanes listed in the applicability of AD 2017-08-07 were affected by the unsafe condition.

The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 8, 2019 (84 FR 2793). The NPRM was prompted by the FAA's identification of an error in the area of the fluorescent dye penetrant inspection requirement. AD 2017-11-09 required a fluorescent penetrant inspection of the fuselage skin between stringer (S)-2L and S-2R. Bombardier Learjet 60 Service Bulletin (SB) 60-53-19, Revision 3, dated August 29, 2016, specifies inspecting only out to the fairing end caps, which is a smaller area.

The FAA also identified an ambiguity in the compliance time for the inspection of the fuselage skin. Paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of AD 2017-11-09 do not specify that the date used for compliance is either the date of issuance of the original airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness, whichever date is earlier.

The FAA is issuing this AD to correct the error of the inspection area and clarify the compliance times for the fluorescent dye penetrant inspection of the fuselage skin. The actions of this AD will detect and correct corrosion of the fuselage skin, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. It has 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.

The FAA reviewed Bombardier Learjet 60 Service Bulletin (SB) 60-53-19, Revision 3, dated August 29, 2016. This service information was previously approved for incorporation by reference in AD 2017-08-07 and retained in AD 2017-11-09. The service information describes procedures for inspections of the fuselage crown skin for corrosion and, as necessary, related investigative inspections and corrective 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.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 284 airplanes of U.S. registry.

The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

This AD adds no additional economic burden. The FAA has not received definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD. According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, it has included all known costs in the cost estimate.

A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.

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.

The FAA is 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 small airplanes, gliders, balloons, airships, domestic business jet transport airplanes, and associated appliances to the Director of the Policy and Innovation Division.

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

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

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

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

(3) 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:

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans 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. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this safety zone by September 7, 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 respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the boat race.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with a boat race on September 7, 2019, will be a safety concern for anyone within a one-mile section of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. Possible hazards include risks of injury or death from near or actual contact among participant vessels and mariners traversing through the safety zone. This rule is necessary to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment during the race.

This rule establishes a safety zone from 10 a.m. through 5 p.m. on September 7, 2019. The safety zone will encompass all navigable waters of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway between mile markers (MMs) 11 and 12 west of the Harvey Locks in Lafitte, LA. The duration of the zone is intended to protect persons, vessels, and the marine environment during the race and will include breaks and opportunity for vessels to transit through the regulated area.

No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from 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 New Orleans. Vessels requiring entry into this safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or 67 or by telephone at (504) 365-2200.

A designated representative may be a Patrol Commander (PATCOM). The PATCOM may be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The PATCOM may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) by the call sign “PATCOM”. The “official patrol vessels” consist of any Coast Guard, state, or local law enforcement and sponsor provided vessels assigned or approved by the COTP or a designated representative to patrol the zone. All persons and vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels are considered spectators.

Spectator vessels desiring to transit the zone may do so only with prior approval of the COTP or a designated representative and when so directed by that officer must be operated at a minimum safe navigation speed in a manner that will not endanger any other vessels. No spectator vessel shall anchor, block, loiter, or impede the through transit of official patrol vessels in the zone during the effective date and times, unless cleared for entry by or through the COTP or a designated representative. Any spectator vessel may anchor outside the zone, but may not anchor in, block, or loiter in a navigable channel. Spectator vessels may be moored to a waterfront facility within the zone in such a way that they shall not interfere with the progress of the event. Such mooring must be complete at least 30 minutes prior to the establishment of the zone and remain moored through the duration of the event.

The COTP or a designated representative may forbid and control the movement of all vessels in the zone. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol vessel, a vessel shall come to an immediate stop and comply with the directions given. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the zone, citation for failure to comply, or both.

The COTP or a designated representative may terminate the operation of any vessel at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of life or property. The COTP or a designated representative will terminate enforcement of the safety zone at the conclusion of the event.

The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the enforcement periods of this safety zone through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs) as appropriate.

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 and duration of the temporary safety zone. This temporary safety zone covers a one-mile section of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway for only seven hours on one day. Moreover, the rule allows vessels to seek permission 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 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 call or email 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 call or email 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 Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), 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 lasting only seven hours on one day that will prohibit entry within a one-mile stretch of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) in Table 3-1 of U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementing Procedures. 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 call or email 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:

The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone for the Wheeling Heritage Port Sternwheel Festival in 33 CFR 165.801, Table 1, Line 77 from 10 p.m. through 11 p.m. on September 14, 2019. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment on navigable waters of the Ohio River during this event. Our regulation for marine events within the Eighth Coast Guard District, § 165.801, specifies the location of the safety zone for the Wheeling Heritage Port Sternwheel Festival, which covers a one-half mile stretch of the Ohio River. Entry into the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh (COTP) or a designated representative. Persons or vessels desiring to enter the safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They can be reached on VHF FM channel 16. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.

In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register , the COTP or a designated representative will inform the public through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs), and/or through other means of public notice as appropriate at least 24 hours in advance of enforcement.

In a document published in the Federal Register on May 17, 2019, VA published a proposed rule, which proposed to revise its regulations that govern the Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF) Program, which is authorized under section 2044 of title 38 United States Code (U.S.C.). 84 FR 22407. VA provided a 30-day comment period, which ended on June 17, 2019. We received 9 comments on the proposed rule.

Section 2044 requires the Secretary to provide financial assistance to eligible entities, approved under this section, to provide and coordinate the provision of supportive services for very low-income veteran families occupying permanent housing. VA implements the SSVF Program under the regulations in title 38 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 62.

Through the SSVF Program, VA awards supportive services grants to private non-profit organizations or consumer cooperatives to provide and coordinate the provision of supportive services to very low-income veteran families who are occupying permanent housing. Pursuant to 38 CFR 62.11, there are three situations in which a very low-income veteran family is considered to be occupying permanent housing. The first possibility is if a family is residing in permanent housing at the risk of becoming homeless but for the grantee's assistance. The second possible situation is if a family is lacking a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence; is at risk of remaining in that state if they do not receive grantee assistance; and is scheduled to become a resident of permanent housing within 90 days pending the location or development of housing suitable for permanent housing. Finally, if a family is lacking a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence after exiting permanent housing within the previous 90 days to seek other housing that is responsive to their needs and preferences, that very low-income family is considered to be occupying permanent housing.

This rulemaking extends the ability of SSVF grantees to provide rental assistance in areas where the limited availability of affordable housing makes it difficult to reduce a community's population of homeless veterans. Through the provision of these subsidies, the pool of available housing can be expanded as program participants have access to a broader rental market.

One commenter was in favor of the proposed rule stating that by allowing for shallow, flat subsidies linked to fair market residential rental rates, families served by rapid rehousing programs will be able to further stabilize in housing and, ultimately, achieve greater self-sufficiency. The commenter added that the communities in which these families reside will benefit from the residual socio-economic value of a reduced demand for emergency services, improved physical and mental well-being for participating households, greater neighborhood stability, and similarly improved educational outcomes for affected youth. As such, the proposed rule will not only fulfill our moral imperative to our fellow citizens, but will pay for itself as a result of reduced demand on local community systems. Another commenter stated that this was a great rule. We make no changes based on these comments.

Another commenter was also in support of the proposed rule stating that this is a highly valuable program, to the extent that it provides additional, and longer, housing assistance, especially for low income veterans and their families in high cost areas. The commenter stated that there are numerous instances in the San Francisco Bay Area of veterans needing housing assistance, because the San Francisco Bay Area, with its limited land space, and hi-tech industries, has some of the highest housing costs in the country. The commenter added that the result is that low income veterans will have difficulty finding and maintaining payments for housing. VA agrees that the proposed changes provide additional and longer housing assistance for low income veterans and their families in high cost areas, such as the San Francisco Bay Area. We are not making any changes based on this comment.

Another commenter supportive of the proposed rule stated that by giving veterans rental assistance, we are allowing them more breathing room in terms of becoming financially stable. The commenter added that VA should also provide veterans with extra money every month so that they can purchase food and pay for utilities. The commenter also stated that if the government cannot come up with this extra money for food allowance, then the government must at least provide them with discounts when veterans go grocery shopping. VA agrees that it is important for some veterans to receive assistance to pay for food and utilities. Under § 62.34 grantees may provide services that are necessary for maintaining independent living in permanent housing and housing stability. Such services include rental and utility assistance. For ongoing support, SSVF works with participants to get mainstream benefits assistance, for example linking participants to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as food stamps, to address food needs. In emergent situations, SSVF grantees can make purchases of food for grantees under § 62.34(e)(1). We are not making any changes based on this comment.

A commenter stated that the proposed rule would potentially enhance SSVFs innovative model of public-private partnership. However, the commenter added that the rule could be strengthened by requiring or effectively encouraging beneficiaries to also engage in alternatively-funded, complimentary VA and/or Continuum of Care (CoC) local or telehealth services that are likely to improve the veteran's future capacity to maintain housing stability. The commenter recommended that beneficiaries of expanded federal assistance under the proposed rule, in collaboration with SSVF personnel, be required to identify and actively engage in whole health or related services to strengthen relationships with family, friends and social supports, and/or increase opportunities to pursue, obtain and maintain employment throughout the period of assistance. As such, veteran families themselves would be more actively represented in the partnership throughout their period of participation.

The commenter also suggested that defining expectations, recommendations and/or commitments around the unique circumstances, goals and priorities of each unique veteran family, including the ability of SSVF personnel to issue time-limited waivers as appropriate based on veteran circumstances and/or local conditions, can contribute to greater integration, collaboration, modernization, and cost efficiencies in our commitment to ending veteran homelessness.

We agree that SSVF should be provided in conjunction with VA health care to eligible veterans to address all of the veteran's needs. As such, VA provides eligible veterans a whole health approach to health care that addresses not only the veteran's health care needs, but also identifies the aspects of the veteran's life that are affecting their health, then work with a team to establish strategies to address them as needed. This approach includes assisting homeless veterans obtain and retain permanent housing. Also, eligible veterans may receive health care in locations that are convenient for the veteran, which includes care in the community as well as telehealth services. Providing accessible care to veterans allows for better management of a veteran's health care needs.

Furthermore, SSVF requires that grantees provide case management services in accordance with 38 CFR 62.31. Such case management includes linkages with appropriate agencies and service providers in the area or community to help participants obtain needed supportive services. SSVF is uniquely positioned in that it can provide case management services to each family member, even non-veterans, to develop a service plan tailored to meet the needs of each family. The case management services are extensive and in addition to facilitating access to health care include delivering or facilitating access to legal services, transportation, benefits, employment, child care, and a host of other services. Accordingly, it is not necessary to make any changes based on this comment.

Another commenter inquired whether the Continuum of Care and SSVF grantees can agree to set different rates, up to the 35 percent cap, for different subpopulations of veterans and suggested that they be able to set different rates. The commenter included two examples. First, can a higher rental subsidy, expressed as a percent of the Fair Market Rent (FMR), be offered to extremely low-income households compared to very-low income households? In addition, can higher subsidy rates be offered to those with disabilities who are on a fixed income? The Continuum of Care and the SSVF grantees can recommend setting differing rates for different sub-populations. This flexibility affords the best level of assistance to those veterans with greater need. We make no changes based on this comment.

This same commenter also stated that at the time of recertification (after two years), if the household is still eligible for the shallow subsidy, it would be useful if the subsidy were reset at the new Fair Market Rent level published for that location and that year rather than the original Fair Market Rent level from a year or two prior. VA agrees with the commenter, and if the household is retained in SSVF and provided another period of shallow subsidy, the new period would be based on the Fair Market Rent in effect at the time of recertification. We are not making any changes based on this comment.

Another commenter asked whether, if a household seeks other SSVF services while enrolled in the shallow subsidy program, they would also only be required to get re-certified after the two-year period described in the proposed rule for other types of financial assistance, or would participants still need to get re-certified every three months for other (non-shallow subsidy) financial assistance? The two-year recertification period would apply to all SSVF services and benefits, including other types of financial assistance. The only exception would be for rental assistance, other than the shallow subsidy, as a household cannot receive both the shallow subsidy and other forms of rental assistance described in § 62.34(a)(1). Should the household receive a Housing Choice voucher, or any similar form of subsidy designed to make the housing unit affordable for very-low income residents, including rental units with a significant underlying subsidy such as those found in Housing and Urban Development (HUD) supported Public Housing, the shallow subsidy would be discontinued. See § 62.34(a)(6). We are not making any changes based on this comment.

Two commenters were in support of the proposed rule, but suggested that VA add Contra Costa County to the list of CoCs that will receive enhanced rental assistance funding with the proposed amendment. The commenters stated that there is a clear and serious need for this assistance in Contra Costa County: The HUD-published Fair Market Rate (FMR) in Contra Costa is $2,126 for a 2-bedroom unit, which is identical to Alameda and Berkeley's FMR of $2,126 up from $1,295 only ten years ago. According to the commenters, this massive rise in rental costs has put a strain on the county's low-income residents, including its homeless and at-risk veteran population. Residents are considered severely burdened by living costs if they pay more than 50 percent of their income on housing. In Contra Costa County, 25.8 percent, or one out of every four residents, pay more than half of their entire income on rent (U.S. Census Bureau). With a very low 4.8 percent vacancy rate, Contra Costa has one of the highest FMRs, lowest vacancy rates, and most severely housing-burdened populations of any county in California. These commenters contend that increased rental assistance for service providers in Contra Costa would make a huge impact in the fight to alleviate this housing crisis for veterans and their families. The commenters added that recent data shows that there is a growing number of veterans in this community that would benefit from this assistance. Contra Costa's 2019 Point in Time (PIT) Count revealed a 14 percent increase in the number of homeless veterans compared to the previous year. The commenters explained that expanding the proposed rule to include Contra Costa County would make a difference in the lives of hundreds of at-risk veterans in the coming years.

These comments are beyond the scope of the final rule. Nevertheless, VA understands the commenters' concerns, and it is VA's intention to review the list of potential shallow subsidy locations and publish the list of counties in the Federal Register as required by the regulation soon after it becomes final and annually thereafter.

Another commenter suggested that VA remove the subsidy level cap of 35 percent of the FMR. The commenter stated that they understand the importance of differentiating this subsidy from the rental supports provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development-VA Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) Program. However, there are eligibility requirements for HUD Housing Choice Vouchers that exclude a substantial number of homeless veterans in need of long-term rental assistance. The commenter added that many homeless veterans fall well below 30 percent Area Median Income. With the FMR as high as $2,126 in Alameda County and $3,170 in San Francisco County for a 2-bedroom unit, even with a 35 percent subsidy exceptionally few homeless veterans will be able to afford the $1,381-$2,060 remaining for the rental unit. This amendment would enable SSVF grantees to provide a subsidy program for veterans who do not otherwise qualify for HUD-VASH. VA acknowledges the commenter's concern and will now allow States and communities to offer State and local housing subsidy funds to participants in order to increase the level of subsidy up to the rent paid. We are amending § 62.34(a)(6) to allow State and local rental subsidies to be combined with SSVF rental assistance described at § 62.34(a). However, Federal subsidies still cannot be accepted by the participant who is receiving a subsidy under section 62.34. In instances where a higher level of federal rental assistance is required, the use of HUD housing vouchers, or other forms of subsidized housing, including other available rental subsidies should be considered. We are amending § 62.34(a)(6) to now state that rental assistance payments cannot be provided on behalf of participants for the same period of time and for the same cost types that are being provided through another Federal housing subsidy program; however, State and local funds may be combined as long as the total subsidy does not exceed the rent.

Based on the rationale set forth in the Supplementary Information to the proposed rule and in this final rule, VA is adopting the proposed rule as final with one change as explained above.

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

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

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

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at http://www.regulations.gov, usually within 48 hours after the rulemaking document is published. Additionally, a copy of the rulemaking and its impact analysis are available on VA's website at http://www.va.gov/orpm by following the link for “VA Regulations Published from FY 2004 through FYTD.” This rule is not an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.

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

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule as not a major rule, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers and titles for the programs affected by this document are: 64.009, Veterans Medical Care Benefits, and 64.033, VA Supportive Services for Veteran Families Program.

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Robert L. Wilkie, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on August 23, 2019, for publication.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Veterans Affairs amends 38 CFR part 62 as follows:

Regulations Schedule for 2018

On June 14, 2018, we published a proposal to amend title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at part 20 (83 FR 27836). The proposal provided a background and overview of the migratory bird hunting regulations process, and addressed the establishment of seasons, limits, and other regulations for hunting migratory game birds under §§ 20.101 through 20.107, 20.109, and 20.110 of subpart K. Major steps in the 2019-20 regulatory cycle relating to open public meetings and Federal Register notifications were also identified in the June 14, 2018, proposed rule.

The June 14, 2018, proposed rule also provided detailed information on the proposed 2019-20 regulatory schedule and announced the Service Regulations Committee (SRC) and Flyway Council meetings.

On September 21, 2018, we published in the Federal Register (83 FR 47868) a second document providing supplemental proposals for migratory bird hunting regulations. The September 21 supplement also provided detailed information on the 2019-20 regulatory schedule and re-announced the SRC meetings. On October 16-17, 2018, we held open meetings with the Flyway Council consultants, at which the participants reviewed information on the current status of migratory game birds and developed recommendations for the 2019-20 regulations for these species. On April 17, 2019, we published in the Federal Register (84 FR 16152) the proposed frameworks for the 2019-20 season migratory bird hunting regulations. On August 19, 2019, we published in the Federal Register (84 FR 42996) final season frameworks for migratory game bird hunting regulations, from which State wildlife conservation agency officials selected season hunting dates, hours, areas, and limits for 2019-20 seasons.

The final rule described here is the final in the series of proposed, supplemental, and final rulemaking documents for migratory game bird hunting regulations for 2019-20, and deals specifically with amending subpart K of 50 CFR part 20. It sets hunting seasons, hours, areas, and limits for migratory game bird species. This final rule is the culmination of the rulemaking process for the migratory game bird hunting seasons, which started with the June 14, 2018, proposed rule. As discussed elsewhere in this document, we supplemented that proposal on September 21, 2018, and April 17, 2019, and published final season frameworks on August 19, 2019, that provided the season selection criteria from which the States selected these seasons. This final rule sets the migratory game bird hunting seasons based on that input from the States. We previously addressed all comments in the August 19 Federal Register .

This action is not subject to Executive Order (E.O.) 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) because it establishes annual harvest limits related to routine hunting or fishing.

The programmatic document, “Second Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (EIS 20130139),” filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on May 24, 2013, addresses NEPA compliance by the Service for issuance of the annual framework regulations for hunting of migratory game bird species. We published a notice of availability in the Federal Register on May 31, 2013 (78 FR 32686), and our Record of Decision on July 26, 2013 (78 FR 45376). We also address NEPA compliance for waterfowl hunting frameworks through the annual preparation of separate environmental assessments, the most recent being “Duck Hunting Regulations for 2019-20,” with its corresponding July 2019, finding of no significant impact. The programmatic document, as well as the separate environmental assessment, is available on our website at https://www.fws.gov/birds/index.php, or from the address indicated under the caption FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), provides that the Secretary shall insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Consequently, we conducted formal consultations to ensure that actions resulting from these regulations would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat. Findings from these consultations are included in a biological opinion, which concluded that the regulations are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species. Additionally, these findings may have caused modification of some regulatory measures previously proposed, and the final frameworks (84 FR 42996; August 19, 2019) reflect any such modifications. Our biological opinions resulting from this section 7 consultation are public documents available for public inspection at the address indicated under ADDRESSES .

E.O. 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. OIRA has reviewed this rule and has determined that this rule is significant because it will have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy.

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

An economic analysis was prepared for the 2019-20 season. This analysis was based on data from the 2011 National Hunting and Fishing Survey, the most recent year for which data are available (see discussion under Regulatory Flexibility Act, below). This analysis estimated consumer surplus for three alternatives for duck hunting (estimates for other species are not quantified due to lack of data). The alternatives are (1) issue restrictive regulations allowing fewer days than those issued during the 2018-19 season, (2) issue moderate regulations allowing more days than those in alternative 1, and (3) issue liberal regulations identical to the regulations in the 2018-19 season. For the 2019-20 season, we chose Alternative 3, with an estimated consumer surplus across all flyways of $334-$440 million with a mid-point estimate of $387 million. We also chose alternative 3 for the 2009-10 through 2018-19 seasons. The 2019-20 analysis is part of the record for this rule and is available at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2018-0030.

The annual migratory bird hunting regulations have a significant economic impact on substantial numbers of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). We analyzed the economic impacts of the annual hunting regulations on small business entities in detail as part of the 1981 cost-benefit analysis. This analysis was revised annually from 1990 through 1995. In 1995, the Service issued a Small Entity Flexibility Analysis (Analysis), which was subsequently updated in 1996, 1998, 2004, 2008, 2013, 2018, and 2019. The primary source of information about hunter expenditures for migratory game bird hunting is the National Hunting and Fishing Survey, which is generally conducted at 5-year intervals. The 2019 Analysis is based on the 2011 National Hunting and Fishing Survey and the U.S. Department of Commerce's County Business Patterns, from which it was estimated that migratory bird hunters would spend approximately $1.5 billion at small businesses in 2019. Copies of the analysis (contained within the above referenced RIA document) are available upon request from the Division of Migratory Bird Management (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ) or from http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2018-0030.

This final rule is a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. For the reasons outlined above, this rule will have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. However, because this rule establishes hunting seasons, we do not plan to defer the effective date under the exemption contained in 5 U.S.C. 808(1).

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. This rule does not contain any new collection of information that requires approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements associated with migratory bird surveys and the procedures for establishing annual migratory bird hunting seasons under the following OMB control numbers:

• 1018-0019, “North American Woodcock Singing Ground Survey” (expires 6/30/2021).

• 1018-0023, “Migratory Bird Surveys, 50 CFR 20.20” (expires 8/31/2020). Includes Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program, Migratory Bird Hunter Surveys, Sandhill Crane Survey, and Parts Collection Survey.

• 1018-0171, “Establishment of Annual Migratory Bird Hunting Seasons, 50 CFR Part 20” (expires 06/30/2021).

We have determined and certify, in compliance with the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this rulemaking will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local or State government or private entities. Therefore, this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

The Department, in promulgating this rule, has determined that this rule will not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988.

In accordance with E.O. 12630, this rule, authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, does not have significant takings implications and does not affect any constitutionally protected property rights. This rule will not result in the physical occupancy of property, the physical invasion of property, or the regulatory taking of any property. In fact, this rule will allow hunters to exercise otherwise unavailable privileges and, therefore, reduce restrictions on the use of private and public property.

E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. While this rule is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, it is not expected to adversely affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated possible effects on Federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no effects on Indian trust resources. However, in the June 14, 2018, Federal Register (83 FR 27836), we solicited proposals for special migratory bird hunting regulations for certain Tribes on Federal Indian reservations, off-reservation trust lands, and ceded lands for the 2019-20 migratory bird hunting season. The resulting proposals were contained in a July 8, 2019 (84 FR 32385), proposed rule. By virtue of these actions, we have consulted with affected Tribes.

Due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, the Federal Government has been given responsibility over these species by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We annually prescribe frameworks from which the States make selections regarding the hunting of migratory birds, and we employ guidelines to establish special regulations on Federal Indian reservations and ceded lands. This process preserves the ability of the States and tribes to determine which seasons meet their individual needs. Any State or Indian tribe may be more restrictive than the Federal frameworks at any time. The frameworks are developed in a cooperative process with the States and the Flyway Councils. This process allows States to participate in the development of frameworks from which they will make selections, thereby having an influence on their own regulations. These rules do not have a substantial direct effect on fiscal capacity, change the roles or responsibilities of Federal or State governments, or intrude on State policy or administration. Therefore, in accordance with E.O. 13132, these regulations do not have significant federalism effects and do not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

The preliminary proposed rulemaking (June 14, 2018; 83 FR 27836) opened the public comment period for 2019-20 migratory game bird hunting regulations. We previously addressed all comments in a August 19, 2019, Federal Register publication (84 FR 42996).

The rulemaking process for migratory game bird hunting, by its nature, operates under a time constraint as seasons must be established each year or hunting seasons remain closed. However, we intend that the public be provided extensive opportunity for public input and involvement in compliance with Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. subchapter II) requirements. Thus, when the preliminary proposed rulemaking was published, we established what we believed were the longest periods possible for public comment and the most opportunities for public involvement. We also provided notification of our participation in multiple Flyway Council meetings, opportunities for additional public review and comment on all Flyway Council proposals for regulatory change, and opportunities for additional public review during the Service Regulations Committee meeting. Therefore, we believe that sufficient public notice and opportunity for involvement have been given to affected persons.

Further, States need sufficient time to communicate these season selections to their affected publics, and to establish and publicize the necessary regulations and procedures to implement these seasons. Thus, we find that “good cause” exists, within the terms of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act, and therefore, under authority of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (July 3, 1918), as amended (16 U.S.C. 703-711), these regulations will take effect less than 30 days after publication. Accordingly, with each conservation agency having had an opportunity to participate in selecting the hunting seasons desired for its State or Territory on those species of migratory birds for which open seasons are now prescribed, and consideration having been given to all other relevant matters presented, certain sections of title 50, chapter I, subchapter B, part 20, subpart K, are hereby amended as set forth below.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 50, chapter I, subchapter B, part 20, subpart K of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: