22100 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Dated: April 27, 2009. 

Fred M. Rosa, Jr., 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, 

Fifth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. E9–11056 Filed 5–11–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2008–1013] 

RIN 1625–AA87 

Security Zones; Escorted Vessels, 

Mobile, AL, Captain of the Port Zone 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is making 

permanent an interim rule establishing 

a security zone around any vessel being 

escorted by one or more Coast Guard 

assets, or other Federal, State, or local 

law enforcement assets, within the 

Captain of the Port Zone Mobile, AL. 

This action is necessary to ensure the 

safe transit and mooring of escorted 

vessels as well as the safety and security 

of personnel and port facilities. No 

vessel or person is allowed inside the 

security zone unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port Mobile, AL or a 

designated representative. 

DATES: This rule is effective June 11, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and material 

received from the public, as well as 

documents indicated in this preamble as 

being available in the docket, are part of 

docket USCG–2008–1013 and are 

available online by going to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, selecting the 

Advanced Docket Search option on the 

right side of the screen, inserting USCG– 

2008–1013 in the Docket ID box, 

pressing Enter, and then clicking on the 

item in the Docket ID column. They are 

also available for inspection or copying 

two locations: The Docket Management 

Facility (M–30), U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays, 

and the Coast Guard Sector Mobile 

Prevention Office located on South 

Broad Street, Mobile, Alabama 36615, 

between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call LT 

Jonathan Mangum at Coast Guard Sector 

Mobile Prevention Department, at 251– 

441–5940. If you have questions on 

viewing the docket, call Renee V. 

Wright, Program Manager, Docket 

Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory Information 

On November 13, 2008, we published 

an Interim Rule with request for 

comments (IR) entitled Security Zones; 

Escorted Vessels, Mobile, AL, Captain of 

the Port Zone in the Federal Register 

(73 FR 67104). We received comments 

from three commenters. No public 

meeting was requested, and none was 

held. 

Background and Purpose 

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 

2001, heightened the need for 

development of various security 

measures throughout the seaports of the 

United States, particularly around 

vessels and facilities whose presence or 

movement creates a heightened 

vulnerability to terrorist acts; or those 

for which the consequences of terrorist 

acts represent a threat to national 

security. The President of the United 

States found that the security of the 

United States is and continues to have 

been endangered following the attacks 

of September 11 (E.O. 13273, 67 FR 

56215 (Sep. 3, 2002), and 73 FR 54489 

(Sep. 18, 2008)). Additionally, national 

security and intelligence officials 

continue to warn that future terrorist 

attacks are likely. The ports within the 

Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone Mobile, 

AL, as described in 33 CFR 3.40–10, 

frequently receive vessels that require 

additional security, including, but not 

limited to, vessels carrying sensitive 

Department of Defense cargoes, vessels 

carrying dangerous cargoes, and foreign 

naval vessels. The COTP has 

determined that these vessels have a 

significant vulnerability to subversive 

activity by other vessels or persons, or, 

in some cases, themselves pose a risk to 

a port and the public within the COTP 

Zone. This rule enables the COTP 

Mobile to provide effective port 

security, while minimizing the public’s 

confusion and easing the administrative 

burden of implementing separate 

temporary security zone rules for each 

escorted vessel. 

Discussion of Comments and Changes 

All three commenters expressed 

concern that a 500-yard security zone 

would exceed the width of some 

navigable waters in the COTP Zone and 

thereby effectively shutdown 

navigation. These comments recognized 

that the COTP Mobile intends to permit 

vessels to transit through the zone if 

such transit can be done safely, but the 

commenters expressed concern that the 

volume of maritime traffic in some of 

the waterways may create congestion 

and delays. We appreciate these 

concerns, but it is imperative that the 

law enforcement assets on-scene have 

an adequately sized buffer zone around 

the vessel to increase their ability to 

distinguish threats and to respond to 

threats that materialize. We also do not 

believe that a 500-yard security zone, 

even if extending bank-to-bank, will 

appreciably affect commercial 

navigation. Law enforcement assets onscene will be designated by the COTP 

Mobile to allow safe transit through the 

zone, which is now routinely done for 

the many safety and security zones 

throughout the COTP Mobile zone 

without undue impact on navigation. 

The IR and this Final Rule establish a 

permanent mechanism for vessels 

requiring escort instead of using the adhoc security zone processes that had 

been COTP Mobile’s past practice, and 

in doing so provide law enforcement 

assets with the appropriate legal basis 

and tools to ensure the security of the 

marine transportation system. 

Accordingly, this Final Rule does not 

change the size of the security zones 

established in the IR. 

Two commenters expressed concern 

with the IR’s provisions that allow, in 

some instances, the continuation of a 

security zone while the vessel is 

moored, even when law enforcement 

assets are not present. These 

commenters explained that without law 

enforcement assets on-scene the public 

would not be aware of the existence of 

the security zone, and there would be 

no efficient mechanism for obtaining 

approval from the COTP Mobile to 

transit through the zone. In instances 

where the security zone will continue 

without law enforcement assets present, 

the IR requires continued notice to the 

public through visible signs and 

markings and a Broadcast Notice to 

Mariners. We believe these 

requirements ensure sufficient notice to 

the public regarding the establishment 

of the security zone. However, we do 

agree that the lack of law enforcement 

assets on-scene in such cases could 

decrease the COTP Mobile’s response to 

requests to transit through the zone in 

circumstances where that zone extends 

bank-to-bank or well into a navigable 

channel. Therefore, in the final rule, we 

are amending the definition of an 

escorted vessel to continue to permit the 

continuation of a security zone under 

this Final Rule for an escorted vessel 

that is moored, but only when Coast 

Guard or other Federal, State, or local 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 22101 

law enforcement assets remain on-scene 

to enforce the zone. Under the final rule, 

notice is provided to the public that the 

security zone remains in effect around 

a moored vessel through the continued 

presence of these properly marked law 

enforcement assets and the Broadcast 

Notice to Mariners. This change from 

the interim rule to the final rule does 

not constrain COTP Mobile from taking 

any additional regulatory or other action 

that may be deemed necessary to ensure 

the safety and security of the marine 

transportation system. Continuing a 

security zone around a moored vessel is 

unlikely to occur in most cases, further 

minimizing impacts to navigation, but 

the COTP Mobile must retain the 

flexibility to continue the security zone 

by maintaining the presence of law 

enforcement assets while the vessel is 

moored to address emerging threats 

without having to undertake additional 

rulemaking. 

One commenter questioned how the 

public will know when a security zone 

that remains around a moored vessel 

ends. While not specific, we interpret 

this comment to relate to those 

situations where no law enforcement 

assets remained on-scene to continue to 

enforce the zone. We resolved this issue 

with the change noted above: The 

security zone around an escorted vessel 

while moored will remain in effect only 

when Coast Guard or other Federal, 

State, or local law enforcement assets 

remain on-scene to enforce the zone. In 

the final rule, we modified paragraph (e) 

Notice of Security Zone to also reflect 

this change. In paragraph (e) we note 

that public notice about the existence of 

a security zone will be continuously 

broadcast, typically at 30-minute 

intervals, for the duration of the security 

zone, and escorted vessels will be 

identified by the presence of law 

enforcement assets. Thus, under the 

final rule, when all law enforcement 

assets depart the scene, the security 

zone ends, and the Broadcast Notice to 

Mariners will terminate, whether the 

vessel is underway or moored. 

One commenter proposed that we 

provide 12-hours advance notice of a 

security zone and disseminate this 

notice through a Marine Safety 

Information Broadcast (MSIB). We did 

not adopt this proposal for several 

reasons. Primarily, giving such broad 

and early notice to the public increases 

the security risk to the escorted vessel, 

as well as the Coast Guard and other 

agency escort assets, by providing 

advance targeting information to 

potential terrorist threats. Also, many 

times the Coast Guard may not know 

until shortly before a vessel’s arrival 

that an escort is required, making 12- 

hour advance notice impractical. We 

believe that the visual notice provided 

by the presence of the properly marked 

law enforcement escorts, usually 

undertaken well before the vessel’s 

arrival inside the port environment, as 

well as the advance notice provided by 

the Broadcast Notice to Mariners, gives 

ample awareness to the public of the 

security zone. 

Another commenter proposed that 

non-Coast Guard assets escorting vessels 

and enforcing the security zone be 

placed under Coast Guard command 

responsibility. We disagree. Each law 

enforcement agency supporting the 

escort and ensuring the integrity of the 

security zone will be acting under its 

own organic legal authority. However, 

we will ensure that the COTP has 

adequate communications with all law 

enforcement assets involved in the 

escort to ensure adequate Coast Guard 

oversight and response and appropriate 

COTP engagement. 

Finally, one commenter questioned 

whether the Coast Guard had the 

resources to sustain a continuous 

presence on-scene to enforce a security 

zone around a moored vessel. Concerns 

about Coast Guard capacity, and other 

law enforcement asset capabilities, are 

beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 

Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on 13 of these statutes or 

executive orders. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

This rule is not a significant 

regulatory action under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review, and does not 

require an assessment of potential costs 

and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that 

Order. The Office of Management and 

Budget has not reviewed it under that 

Order. 

We expect the economic impact of 

this rule to be so minimal that a full 

Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. 

The limited geographic area impacted 

by the security zone will not restrict the 

movement or routine operation of 

commercial or recreational vessels 

through the Ports within the Captain of 

the Port Zone Mobile. Vessels requiring 

transit through the security zone also 

may be permitted to do so with approval 

by COTP Mobile or a designated 

representative. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this rule would have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 

small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This rule may affect the following 

entities, some of which may be small 

entities: The owners or operators of 

vessels intending to transit in the 

vicinity of escorted vessels on the 

navigable waters of the Captain of the 

Port Zone, Mobile, Alabama. This rule 

would not have a significant impact on 

a substantial number of small entities 

because the zones are limited in size, 

encompassing the escorted vessel and a 

500-yard radius around the vessel only. 

In most cases, the security zones will 

leave ample space for vessels to navigate 

around them. If not, and security 

conditions permit, the COTP will 

attempt to provide flexibility for 

individual vessels to transit trough the 

zones as needed. Therefore, the security 

zones will not significantly impact 

commercial and passenger vessel traffic 

patterns. Additionally, mariners will be 

given advance notice of all security 

zones created under this rule via 

broadcast notice to mariners. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

in the IR we offer to assist small entities 

in understanding the rule so that they 

can better evaluate its effects on them 

and participate in the rulemaking 

process. 

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. 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
22102 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Collection of Information 

This rule calls for no new collection 

of information under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3520). 

Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on State or local governments and 

would either preempt State law or 

impose a substantial direct cost of 

compliance on them. We have analyzed 

this rule under that Order and have 

determined that it does not have 

implications for federalism. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 or more in any one year. 

Although this rule will not result in 

such an expenditure, we do discuss the 

effects of this rule elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This rule will not effect a taking of 

private property or otherwise have 

taking implications under Executive 

Order 12630, Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights. 

Civil Justice Reform 

This rule meets applicable standards 

in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive 

Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to 

minimize litigation, eliminate 

ambiguity, and reduce burden. 

Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not 

an economically significant rule and 

does not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that may 

disproportionately affect children. 

Indian Tribal Governments 

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. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 5100.1 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded this action is one of a 

category of actions which do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule is categorically 

excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(34)(g), of the Instruction. Paragraph 

(34)(g) covers regulations establishing, 

disestablishing, or changing security 

zones. This rule involves establishing 

security zones around escorted vessels 

in the COTP Zone Mobile, AL. An 

environmental analysis checklist and a 

categorical exclusion determination are 

available in the docket where indicated 

under ADDRESSES. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

■ Accordingly, the interim rule 

amending 33 CFR part 165, which was 

published at 73 FR 67107 on November 

13, 2008, is adopted as a final rule with 

the following changes: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Public 

Law 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Amend § 165.836, as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (a), revise the 

definition of ‘‘escorted vessel’’ as set 

forth below; 

■ b. In paragraph (a), in the definition of 

‘‘minimum safe speed’’, remove the two 

occurrences of the phrase ‘‘for 

navigation’’; 

■ c. In paragraph (c), remove the word 

‘‘in’’ from the last sentence and add in 

its place the phrase ‘‘described in 

paragraph (b) of’’; 

■ d. In paragraph (d)(1), add the phrase 

‘‘of this part’’ after ‘‘§ 165.33’’; 

■ e. Revise paragraph (e) to read as set 

forth below. 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 165.836 Security Zone; Escorted 

Vessels, Mobile, Alabama, Captain of the 

Port. 

(a) * * * 

Escorted vessel means a vessel, other 

than a large U.S. naval vessel as defined 

in 33 CFR 165.2015, that is 

accompanied by one or more Coast 

Guard assets or other Federal, State, or 

local law enforcement agency assets 

clearly identifiable by flashing lights, 

vessel markings, or with agency insignia 

as follows: Coast Guard surface or air 

asset displaying the Coast Guard 

insignia. State and/or local law 

enforcement asset displaying the 

applicable agency markings and/or 

equipment associated with the agency. 

Escorted vessel also means a moored or 

anchored vessel that was escorted by 

Coast Guard assets or other Federal, 

State, or local law enforcement agency 

assets to its present location and some 

or all of those properly marked assets 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 22103 

remain on-scene to continue to enforce 

the security zone. 

* * * * * 

(e) Notice of security zone. The COTP 

will inform the public of the existence 

or status of the security zones around 

escorted vessels in the regulated area by 

broadcast notices to mariners, normally 

issued at 30-minute intervals while the 

security zones remains in effect. 

Escorted vessels will be identified by 

the presence of Coast Guard assets or 

other Federal, State or local law 

enforcement agency assets. 

* * * * * 

Dated: March 27, 2009. 

E.M. Stanton, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the 

Port Mobile. 

[FR Doc. E9–10969 Filed 5–11–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

38 CFR Part 3 

RIN 2900–AM98 

Reimbursement for Interment Costs 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document amends the 

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 

adjudication regulations on burial 

benefits to incorporate a change made 

by the Dr. James Allen Veteran Vision 

Equity Act of 2007. Specifically, this 

document eliminates a 2-year time 

limitation for States to file with VA 

claims for reimbursement of interment 

costs. The removal of this time 

limitation is necessary to conform the 

regulations to recent legislation and 

governing statutes. 

DATES: Effective Date: This amendment 

is effective May 12, 2009. 

Applicability Date: In accordance 

with section 202(a)(2) of the Dr. James 

Allen Veteran Vision Equity Act of 

2007, this amendment will apply with 

respect to interments and inurnments of 

unclaimed remains of deceased veterans 

occurring on or after October 1, 2006. 

This amendment will apply to all other 

interments and inurnments occurring on 

or after the date of publication in the 

Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Kniffen, Chief of Regulations 

Staff (211D), Compensation and Pension 

Service, Veterans Benefits 

Administration, Department of Veterans 

Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461–9725. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

3.1604 of title 38, Code of Federal 

Regulations, governs VA burial benefits 

when non-VA sources have paid or 

contributed to burial expenses. Section 

3.1604(d) governs payment of the plot or 

interment allowance to a State or 

political subdivision of a State. Section 

3.1604(d)(2) governs claims for the plot 

or interment allowance, and the second 

sentence in § 3.1604(d)(2) requires that 

such a claim be filed with VA within 2 

years after the permanent burial or 

cremation of the body. Section 202(a) of 

the Dr. James Allen Veteran Vision 

Equity Act of 2007, Public Law 110– 

157, repealed this second sentence as it 

pertains to unclaimed remains of a 

deceased veteran. 

Although the legislation removed the 

2-year time limit only for claims 

regarding the unclaimed remains of a 

deceased veteran, we have decided to 

eliminate the 2-year time limit on all 

claims for plot or interment allowances. 

Currently, 38 U.S.C. 2304 contains the 

only statutory time limitation on the 

filing of an application for burial 

benefits within title 38, United States 

Code. Section 2304 requires that 

applications for payment of the burial 

allowance for non-service-connected 

deaths under 38 U.S.C. 2302 must be 

filed within 2 years after the burial of 

the veteran. However, this time limit 

does not extend to the plot or interment 

allowance authorized by 38 U.S.C. 

2303(b), the benefit § 3.1604(d)(2) 

governs. Therefore, we are removing the 

second and the third sentences of 

current § 3.1604(d)(2), which limit the 

time for filing claims for the plot or 

interment allowance under section 

2303(b). 

Administrative Procedure Act 

This final rule merely conforms VA 

regulations governing burial benefits to 

a recent legislative change and relieves 

a restriction (eliminates a time limit). 

Accordingly, there is good cause for 

dispensing with the notice-andcomment and delayed-effective-date 

procedures otherwise required by 5 

U.S.C. 553 because such procedures are 

impractical, unnecessary, and contrary 

to the public interest. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This document contains no provisions 

constituting a collection of information 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3521). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Secretary hereby certifies that 

this final rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities as they are 

defined in the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612. The Secretary 

does acknowledge that this final rule 

may affect some States and political 

subdivisions of States, including a few 

political subdivisions of States that may 

be considered small entities; however, 

the economic impact is not significant. 

This final rule does not impose any new 

requirements on States or political 

subdivisions of States in order to receive 

the burial benefits governed by 38 CFR 

3.1604. It merely eliminates the time 

restriction on when they may file for 

such benefits. To the extent that small 

entities are affected, the impact of this 

amendment is both minimal and 

entirely beneficial. Therefore, pursuant 

to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this final rule is 

exempt from the initial and final 

regulatory flexibility analysis 

requirements of sections 603 and 604. 

Executive Order 12866 

Executive Order 12866 directs 

agencies to assess all costs and benefits 

of available regulatory alternatives and, 

when regulation is necessary, to select 

regulatory approaches that maximize 

net benefits (including potential 

economic, environmental, public health 

and safety, and other advantages; 

distributive impacts; and equity). The 

Executive Order classifies a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action,’’ requiring review by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), as any regulatory action that is 

likely to result in a rule that may: (1) 

Have an annual effect on the economy 

of $100 million or more or adversely 

affect in a material way the economy, a 

sector of the economy, productivity, 

competition, jobs, the environment, 

public health or safety, or State, local, 

or tribal governments or communities; 

(2) create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; (3) 

materially alter the budgetary impact of 

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 

programs or the rights and obligations of 

recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel 

legal or policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates, the President’s priorities, or 

the principles set forth in the Executive 

Order. 

The economic, interagency, 

budgetary, legal, and policy 

implications of this final rule have been 

examined, and it has been determined 

not to be a significant regulatory action 

under Executive Order 12866. 

Unfunded Mandates 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that 

agencies prepare an assessment of 

anticipated costs and benefits before 

issuing any rule that may result in the 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES