Federal Register Vol. 80, No.158,

These regulations in a proposed rule were published for public comment in the Federal Register on June 11, 2015 (80 FR 33199), the comment period ended on August 10, 2015, and one commenter provided input. He is a private citizen and submitted his comments by mail.

The commenter provided various comments on the proposed Freedom of Information Act procedures at part 10000. First, the commenter recommended that § 10000.6(b) should state that responses to a FOIA request should include the case number and the date of the original request. Reasoning that the absence of this information can cause confusion and wasted effort should an administrative appeal be necessary. We agree with the suggestion and § 10000.6(b) has been modified to reflect that correspondence responding to FOIA requests should include the case number and date of the original request.

In addition, the commenter had several comments about the proposed § 10000.10 concerning fees. The commenter stated that a page duplication fee of $.10 per page should be identified. The commenter states that the fee is supposed to be a proxy based on actual duplication costs. The commenter states actual duplication costs are substantially less than $.10 per page, but the standard rate for most agencies is $.10. FOIA regulation 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A)(ii) states fees shall be limited to reasonable standard charges for document search, duplication, and review. No specific fee scale was applied in the regulation, the Council does not intend to cite a specific cost for duplication. Not having specific rates listed in the regulation allows the Council to adjust costs accordingly when a price fluctuation exists which allows the Council flexibility to adjust rates without first necessitating a change in the regulation.

In addition, the commenter states in § 10000.10(c) the reference to the operating costs for a central processing unit is obsolete as well as the reference to the salary of the operators performing the search. FOIA regulation 28 CFR 16.10(a)(2) defines direct costs as expenses that an agency incurs in searching for and duplicating (and, in the case of commercial use requests, reviewing) records in order to respond to a FOIA request. For example, direct costs include the salary of the employee performing the work (i.e., the basic rate of pay for the employee, plus 16 percent of that rate to cover benefits) and the cost of operating computers and other electronic equipment, such as photocopiers and scanners. The Council did not find it necessary to make changes to the section, the Council will adhere to all applicable statutes when assessing direct costs.

The commenter states in § 100000.10(d) the rules are ambiguous and should clearly state unambiguously that noncommercial requesters are not charged review fees. The commenter added that OMB guidance is quite clear that noncommercial requesters are not charged. The commenter also stated charging review fees following the results of an appeal in which the written initial determination was reversed or remanded is procedurally unfair and could impose needless hurdles. Council maintains there is sufficient clarity in the current language “review fees shall be charged for requesters who make commercial use requests”. As to the assessment of review fees post an appeal, Council followed OMB guidelines when proposing review fees be assessed. We appreciate the commenter's perspective, the Council has decided to retain the language which mirrors the FOIA statute. Such fees are allowable under the FOIA regulations and therefore current language will remain unchanged.

Additionally, in § 10000.10(e) the commenter suggests changing the wording of “statutory entitlements of 100 pages of duplication . . .” To “statutory entitlements of 100 pages of duplication or equivalent”, so that other types of duplicated media can be accommodated. With the ever-changing nature in which data is collected the Council agrees with the commenter and will add specific language to the final rule indicating that duplication costs equivalent of 100 pages in print or equivalent will be processed at no charge.

This final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” within the meaning of Executive Order 12866. The economic impact of these regulations should be minimal, therefore, further economic evaluation is not necessary.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions. The Council considered the effects on this final rule on small entities and certifies that these final rules will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, requires each agency to assess the effects of its regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector. Agencies must prepare a written statement of economic and regulatory alternatives anytime a proposed or final rule imposes a new or additional enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal government or the private sector that causes those entities to spend, in aggregate, $100 million or more (adjusted for inflation) in any one year (defined in UMRA as a “federal mandate”). The Council determined that such a written statement is not required in connection with these final rules because they will not impose a federal mandate, as defined in UMRA.

The Council analyzed this action for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., and determined that it would not significantly affect the environment; therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. This final rule does not include an information collection for purposes of the PRA.

This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, dated August 4, 1999, and the Council determined that it does not have sufficient implications for federalism to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Council amends title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, by establishing chapter C, consisting of parts 10000-10049, to read as follows:

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) issues this compliance bulletin to provide information to developers and other interested parties relating to Public Law 113-167, 128 Stat. 1882 (2014), which amended the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (ILSA). This ILSA amendment was signed by the President on September 26, 2014. It became effective on March 25, 2015, and is codified primarily at 15 U.S.C. 1702(b)(9) and (d).

The amendment exempts from ILSA's registration and disclosure requirements the sale or lease of a condominium unit that is not exempt under 15 U.S.C. 1702(a). Under 15 U.S.C. 1702(d), a “condominium unit” is defined for purposes of this new exemption as a unit of residential or commercial property to be designated for separate ownership pursuant to a condominium plan or declaration provided that upon conveyance: (1) The owner of such unit will have sole ownership of the unit and an undivided interest in the common elements appurtenant to the unit; and (2) the unit will be an improved lot.

Pursuant to § 1010.4(d) of the Bureau's ILSA regulations, eligibility for an exemption under 15 U.S.C. 1702, including the exemption of section 1702(b)(9), is self-determining, and a developer is not required to file notice with or obtain the approval of the Bureau in order to take advantage of an exemption. Section 1010.4(d) also provides that a developer is responsible for maintaining records to demonstrate that the requirements of an exemption have been met if a developer elects to take advantage of an exemption. The Bureau will continue to process filings made by developers seeking to fulfill their obligations under ILSA and its implementing regulations.

If you have questions about ILSA program operations, you may contact ILSA program staff via email to [email protected] or at the address below: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Interstate Land Sales Program, 1700 G St. NW., Attn: 1625 Eye St., Room 3093, Washington, DC 20552.

If you have a question regarding the interpretation of ILSA or the Bureau's implementing regulations, please email [email protected] with your specific question, including reference to the applicable regulation section(s).

Bureau staff responding to queries cannot provide legal advice and are not authorized to provide official interpretations of ILSA or of the Bureau's implementing regulations.

This Compliance Bulletin summarizes existing requirements under the law, and does not itself establish any binding obligations. It is therefore exempt from notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not require an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis. 5 U.S.C. 603(a), 604(a). The Bureau has determined that this Compliance Bulletin does not impose any new or revise any existing recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirements on covered entities or members of the public that would be collections of information requiring OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD No.: 2015-0159-E, dated July 31, 2015 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3398.

ASI AVIATION has issued Service Bulletin No.: F406-104, dated July 28, 2015. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. The service information describes procedures for inspection of the left-hand and right-hand rudder control pedal torque tubes, and, depending on findings, replacement with a serviceable part. 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 of this AD.

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

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because detachment of the pilot rudder control pedal in flight could result in loss of airplane directional control. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2015-3398; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-031-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

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

We estimate that this AD will affect 7 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 5 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.

Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $2,975, or $425 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 20 work-hours and require parts costing $10,000, for a cost of $11,700 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to adding an AD that would apply to British Aerospace Regional Aircraft Model Jetstream Model 3201 airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on May 26, 2015 (80 FR 29988). The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country. The MCAI states:

The SSID will be revised in due course to include the SDI. The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-1744-0002.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (80 FR 29988, May 26, 2015) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 29988, May 26, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 29988, May 26, 2015).

We reviewed British Aerospace Regional Aircraft British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200 Service Bulletin 57-JA140140, Original Issue, dated: June 26, 2014. The service information describes procedures for inspections of the wing main spar around Rib 36 to detect cracks and, depending on findings, accomplishment of the applicable corrective action(s). 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 of this AD.

We estimate that this AD will affect 22 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 96 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.

Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $179,520, or $8,160 per product.

We have no way of determining any necessary follow-on actions, costs, or the number of products that may need these actions.

A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to 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 current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591. ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

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

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-1744; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to adding an AD that would apply to British Aerospace Regional Aircraft Model Jetstream Series 3101 and Jetstream Model 3201 airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on June 9, 2015 (80 FR 32510). The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country.

The MCAI states:

The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-2048-0003.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (80 FR 32510, June 9, 2015) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 32510, June 9, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 32510, June 9, 2015).

We reviewed British Aerospace Regional Aircraft British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200 Service Bulletin 57-JA120141, REVISION 1, dated April 8, 2014. The service information describes procedures for inspection and replacement of main landing gear trunnion cap tension bolts. 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 of this AD.

We estimate that this AD will affect 66 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 6 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.

Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $33,660, or $510 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will take about 1 work-hour and require parts costing $1,200, for a cost of $1,285 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

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

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

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-2048; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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.

This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends the restricted area airspace at Fort Polk, LA, to enhance aviation safety and accommodate essential U.S. Army training requirements.

On September 25, 2014, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (79 FR 57486) to expand the lateral boundary and raise the designated altitudes of restricted area R-3804B, amend the time of designation for R-3804A and R-3804B, and make using agency corrections to R-3804A, R-3804B, and R-3804C. The R-3804 restricted area complex amendments support the military training activities conducted at Fort Polk, LA.

Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. Fifteen comments were received with 14 of the commenters supporting the proposed action, and one commenter raising several concerns.

The commenter suggested the FAA offset a larger R-3804B by eliminating the R-3801A, R-3801B, and R-3801C restricted areas and/or the R-3803A and R-3803B restricted areas. The commenter offered that since the R-3801 complex and the Hackett and Jena Military Operations Areas (MOAs) all have the deactivated 917th Fighter Wing listed as the using agency, the FAA should consider them for deactivation. The R-3801 complex and associated MOAs mentioned by the commenter are used by U.S. Air Force B-52 aircraft operating from Barksdale Air Force Base (AFB), LA, for electronic combat training. The FAA has amended the legal descriptions of these Special Use Airspace (SUA) areas, effective April 30, 2015, to reflect the current using agency, the 307th Bomb Wing at Barksdale AFB, LA. The R-3803 complex noted by the commenter is used by U.S. Army units at Fort Polk for live fire training similar to that occurring in the R-3804 complex. The actual time the restricted area complexes are activated is roughly the same and consistent with the expected usage of the proposed R-3804B.

The commenter also stated that real-time deactivation of the restricted area complex during Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) periods of use is a disservice to civilian pilots who have flight planned to avoid the airspace. In the interest of maximizing navigable airspace availability to the flying public, the FAA considers real-time deactivation of SUA airspace, and making it available to non-participants, an efficient use of the National Airspace System. Under the FAA “joint use” concept, SUA is expected to be released to the controlling agency and become available for access by nonparticipating aircraft during periods when the airspace is not needed by the using agency for its designated purpose.

Lastly, the commenter questioned how much of the NOTAM activation period is actually going to be used by Fort Polk. The expected usage of R-3804B is approximately 2 weeks per month, continuously, during large unit training rotations. Modern weapons capabilities and tactics are optimized for around-the-clock employment, and training events to replicate combat scenarios can occur any time of the day or night. The R-3804 complex utilization reporting for 2013, the most recent year available, shows R-3804B to have been activated 5,412 hours out of a possible 8,760 hours. The FAA considers this utilization rate to be consistent with Fort Polk's planned use of the proposed R-3804B.

The amendments to R-3804A, R-3804B, and R-3804C are addressed below.

This action amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 73 by expanding the lateral and vertical dimensions of restricted area R-3804B, Fort Polk, LA; changing the times of designation for R-3804A and R-3804B; and updating the using agency information for R-3804A, R-3804B, and R-3804C, and removing unnecessary verbiage from the designated altitudes and times of designation information for R-3804C.

The R-3804B boundary is expanded northward to match the northern boundary of R-3804A, as described in the NPRM, and the designated altitudes are raised from 3,000 feet MSL to, but not including, 10,000 feet MSL. This lateral and vertical expansion of R-3804B ensures containment of the hazardous artillery and mortar fires planned by the U.S. Army.

Additionally, the time of designation for R-3804A and R-3804B are changed from “Continuous” to “By NOTAM.” This amendment ensures the restricted areas are available to the U.S. Army when needed, continuously approximately two weeks each month, and provides a better indication to nonparticipants when the restricted areas are active and when they are available for use by the public.

Lastly, this action makes editorial updates to the using agency name for R-3804A, R-3804B, and R-3804C to incorporate the military service component of the using agency in the using agency name, removes the word “up” contained in the designated altitudes for R-3804C, and removes the words “As published” contained in the time of designation for R-3804C. These are purely administrative changes that do not affect the scheduling, use, or activities conducted within the restricted areas.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Regarding expansion of the lateral boundary and raising the designated altitudes of restricted area R-3804B, in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, paragraphs 402 and 404d, the FAA has conducted an independent evaluation of the United States Army, Joint Readiness Training Center's Final Environmental Assessment for the Establishment of Additional Restricted Airspace Joint Readiness Training Center and Fort Polk, LA dated March 2013 (hereinafter “the FEA”). The FAA adopted the relevant portions of the FEA and prepared a Finding of No Significant Impact/Record of Decision dated August 11, 2015. The FAA has determined that no significant impacts would occur as a result of the Federal action and therefore that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not warranted, and a Finding of No Significant Impact in accordance with 40 CFR part 1501.4(e) is appropriate.

Regarding amending the time of designation for R-3804A and R-3804B, the FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 311c. This action, by changing time of designation from “continuous” to “by NOTAM” serves to return all or part of special use airspace (SUA) to the National Airspace System (NAS). It is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exists that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

Regarding making using agency corrections to R-3804A, R-3804B, and R-3804C, the FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 311d. This action is an administrative change to the titles in the descriptions of the affected restricted areas to reflect the correct locations. It does not alter the dimensions, altitudes, times of designation or actual physical locations of the airspace; therefore, it is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exists that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 73 as follows:

I. Background

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

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

In response to a request to classify a device under either procedure provided by section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA will classify the device by written order within 120 days. This classification will be the initial classification of the device. On June 24, 2013, Cerebral Assessment Systems, Inc., submitted a request for classification of the Cognivue under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. The manufacturer recommended that the device be classified into class II (Ref. 1).

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

Therefore, on June 5, 2015, FDA issued an order to the requestor classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding § 882.1470.

Following the effective date of this final classification administrative order, any firm submitting a premarket notification [510(k)] for a computerized cognitive assessment aid will need to comply with the special controls named in the final order. The device is assigned the generic name computerized cognitive assessment aid, and it is identified as a prescription device that uses an individual's score(s) on a battery of cognitive tasks to provide an interpretation of the current level of cognitive function. The computerized cognitive assessment aid is used only as an assessment aid to determine level of cognitive functioning for which there exists other valid methods of cognitive assessment and does not identify the presence or absence of clinical diagnoses. The computerized cognitive assessment aid is not intended as a stand-alone or adjunctive diagnostic device.

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

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

• The technical parameters of the device's hardware and software must be fully characterized and be accompanied by appropriate non-clinical testing:

○ Hardware specifications must be provided. Appropriate verification, validation, and hazard analysis must be performed.

○ Software, including any proprietary algorithm(s) used by the device to arrive at its interpretation of the patient's cognitive function, must be described in detail in the Software Requirements Specification (SRS) and Software Design Specification (SDS). Appropriate software verification, validation, and hazard analysis must be performed.

• The device must be designed and tested for electrical safety.

• The labeling must include:

○ A summary of any testing conducted to demonstrate how the device functions as an interpretation of the current level of cognitive function. The summary of testing must include the following, if available: Any expected or observed adverse events and complications; any performance measurements including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) per the device intended use; a description of the repeatability of measurements; a description of how the cut-off values for categorization of measurements were determined; and a description of the construct validity of the device.

○ A warning that the device does not identify the presence or absence of clinical diagnoses.

○ A warning that the device is not a stand-alone diagnostic.

○ The intended use population and the intended use environment.

○ Any instructions technicians must convey to patients regarding the administration of the test and collection of cognitive test data.

Computerized cognitive assessment aids are prescription devices restricted to patient use only upon the authorization of a practitioner licensed by law to administer or use the device; see 21 CFR 801.109 (Prescription devices).

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

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

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

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

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

(a) Identification. The computerized cognitive assessment aid is a prescription device that uses an individual's score(s) on a battery of cognitive tasks to provide an interpretation of the current level of cognitive function. The computerized cognitive assessment aid is used only as an assessment aid to determine level of cognitive functioning for which there exists other valid methods of cognitive assessment and does not identify the presence or absence of clinical diagnoses. The computerized cognitive assessment aid is not intended as a stand-alone or adjunctive diagnostic device.

(b) Classification. Class II (special controls). The special control(s) for this device are:

(1) The technical parameters of the device's hardware and software must be fully characterized and be accompanied by appropriate non-clinical testing:

(i) Hardware specifications must be provided. Appropriate verification, validation, and hazard analysis must be performed.

(ii) Software, including any proprietary algorithm(s) used by the device to arrive at its interpretation of the patient's cognitive function, must be described in detail in the software requirements specification (SRS) and software design specification (SDS). Appropriate software verification, validation, and hazard analysis must be performed.

(2) The device must be designed and tested for electrical safety.

(3) The labeling must include:

(i) A summary of any testing conducted to demonstrate how the device functions as an interpretation of the current level of cognitive function. The summary of testing must include the following, if available: Any expected or observed adverse events and complications; any performance measurements including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) per the devices intended use; a description of the repeatability of measurements; a description of how the cut-off values for categorization of measurements were determined; and a description of the construct validity of the device.

(ii) A warning that the device does not identify the presence or absence of clinical diagnoses.

(iii) A warning that the device is not a stand-alone diagnostic.

(iv) The intended use population and the intended use environment.

(v) Any instructions technicians must convey to patients regarding the administration of the test and collection of cognitive test data.

The Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986, 31 U.S.C. 3801 et seq. (the Act), outlines a procedure for establishing administrative procedures for imposing civil penalties and assessments against persons who make, submit, or present, or cause to be made, submitted, or presented, false fictitious, or fraudulent claims or written statements to authorities or to their agents; and specifying the hearing and appeal rights of persons subject to allegations of liability for such penalties and assessments. In a nutshell, the “investigating official” (who is in the Office of the Inspector General) presents a case to the “reviewing official” (currently defined as the Chief Financial Officer) who, if appropriate, forwards the case to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice will approve a “claim” if it believes further action is warranted. The reviewing official serves the claim on the respondent. There is a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ), and a disposition adverse to the respondent can be appealed to the “authority head,” defined in the rule as the Under Secretary for Management.

Currently, the Under Secretary for Management is designated by the President as the Chief Financial Officer for the Department of State. Therefore, he is the reviewing official as well as the authority head, which of course is unacceptable. This rule corrects that anomaly, by defining the “reviewing official” as the Assistant Legal Adviser for Buildings and Acquisitions (hereinafter, “the ALA”). The Under Secretary for Management remains the authority head.

The Act (in 31 U.S.C. 3801(a)(8)) outlines the qualifications for the reviewing official, all of which are met by the ALA. (1) He or she must be designated by the authority head to make the determination under 31 U.S.C. 3803(a)(2) to send the case to the Department of Justice for its review and action, if appropriate. (2) He or she must be serving in a position for which the rate of basic pay is not less than the minimum rate of basic pay for grade GS-16 under the General Schedule; the ALA is a member of the Senior Executive Service, and thus has a rate of pay at least as high as GS-16, a grade which was eliminated under the provisions of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. (3) He or she must not be subject to supervision by, or required to report to, the investigating official, and not employed in the organizational unit of the authority in which the investigating official is employed; the ALA is not in the Office of the Inspector General and is not (nor will he or she ever be) subject to the supervision of anyone in that office.

Accordingly, 22 CFR 35.2(r), the definition of “reviewing official,” is changed by this rulemaking.

This regulation amends a “rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice”, which is not subject to the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Therefore, the Department is issuing this amendment as a final rule.

Because this final rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553, it is exempt from the regulatory flexibility analysis requirements set forth by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Nonetheless, consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. This rule will not result in any such expenditure, nor will it significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804. The Department is aware of no monetary effect on the economy that would result from this rulemaking, nor will there be any increase in costs or prices; or any effect on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and import markets.

The Department of State has reviewed this rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, and has determined that the benefits of this regulation outweigh any cost. The Department does not consider this rule to be a economically significant rulemaking action.

This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The rule will not have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders 12372 and 13132.

The Department has reviewed the regulation in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.

The Department of State has determined that this rulemaking will not have tribal implications, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not preempt tribal law. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply to this rulemaking.

This rule does not impose or revise information collection requirements under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, amend part 35 of title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

I. Background

HUD's regulations at 24 CFR part 15 contain the policies and procedures governing public access to HUD records under the FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552). Subject to certain statutory exceptions, the FOIA gives persons the right to request and receive a wide range of information from any Federal agency. The FOIA has been amended several times since its enactment in 1966. In 2007, significant amendments to the FOIA were made by the Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National Government Act of 2007 (OPEN Government Act) (Pub. L. 110-175, approved December 31, 2007). The OPEN Government Act made several amendments to procedural issues affecting FOIA administration, including the protection of the fee status for news media, the time limits for agencies to act upon FOIA requests, the availability of agency records maintained by a private entity, the establishment of a FOIA Public Liaison and FOIA Requester Service Center, and the requirement to describe the exemptions authorizing the redaction of material provided under the FOIA.

In addition to these statutory changes, several policy directives have been issued that affect HUD's FOIA program. These policy directives include Presidential memoranda dated January 21, 2009, entitled “Freedom of Information Act” (74 FR 4683, January 26, 2009), which applies a presumption of disclosure in FOIA decision-making and “Transparency and Open Government” (74 FR 4685, January 26, 2009), which encourages Federal agencies to harness new technologies to proactively post online information about their operations and decisions consistent with applicable law. As required by the Presidential memoranda, on March 19, 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder issued comprehensive new FOIA guidelines (see http://www.justice.gov/ag/foia-memo-march2009.pdf). The Attorney General's guidance further advises that agencies should release information to the fullest extent of the law, including information that may be legally withheld, provided there is no foreseeable harm to an interest protected by an exemption or the disclosure is not prohibited by law. In addition, the Attorney General's FOIA guidelines emphasized that agencies must have effective systems in place for responding to FOIA requests.

Consistent with this law and guidance, HUD undertook a comprehensive review of its FOIA regulation. As part of this review, HUD looked to the proposed updated FOIA regulation published by the Department of Justice (DOJ) on March 21, 2011 (76 FR 15236). DOJ intended that its regulation serve as a model for all agencies in updating their own FOIA regulations.1 As a result of its review, HUD published a proposed rule on May 31, 2013 (78 FR 32595), modeled on DOJ's proposed regulation, to incorporate changes enacted by the OPEN Government Act of 2007, reflect developments in case law, include current cost figures for calculating and charging fees, and enhance the administration and operation of HUD's FOIA program by increasing the transparency and clarity of the regulation.

This final rule follows publication of the May 31, 2013, proposed rule and takes into consideration the public comments received on the proposed rule. In response to public comment, a discussion of which is presented in the following section of this preamble, and in further consideration of issues addressed at the proposed rule stage, the Department is making the following changes at this final rule:

• HUD is revising § 15.103(c) to state that HUD will provide written notice to requesters when the time limits for HUD's response will be delayed. HUD will also provide the requester with the date by which HUD expects to complete its processing of the request.

• HUD is revising § 15.104(c)(3) to mirror the language of the FOIA. Specifically, HUD is removing the requirement that a representative of the news media, if not a full-time member of the news media, should establish that he or she is a person whose main professional activity or occupation is information dissemination.

• HUD is revising § 15.106(c) to reduce the duplication costs that HUD will charge for a paper photocopy of a record from $0.18 per page to $0.10 per page.

• HUD is revising § 15.107(a) to refer to the most current Executive order regarding classified information, which is Executive Order 13526, issued December 29, 2009.

• HUD is removing proposed § 15.109 from this final rule. Upon review HUD has determined that, § 15.109, entitled “Mortgage sales,” directed itself to a specific HUD program rather than establish disclosure policy applicable throughout the Department. In addition, § 15.109 as proposed did not accurately describe the process that HUD uses to address FOIA requests for information arising out of HUD's mortgage sales program. As a result, HUD is removing § 15.109 as proposed from this final rule.

• HUD is revising § 15.110(a) of the proposed rule (redesignated as § 15.109(a) in this final rule) to clarify that appeals may be submitted electronically.

• HUD is revising § 15.111(a)(2) of the proposed rule (redesignated as § 15.110(a)(2) in this final rule) by adding paragraph (iii) to provide that HUD will notify requesters of dispute resolution services in its FOIA appeal determination response letter.

The public comment period for the May 31, 2013, proposed rule closed on July 30, 2013, and HUD received three public comments on the proposed rule. Comments were submitted by a nonprofit organization devoted to issues of effective government and by two members of the public. HUD reviewed the comments and considered responses to them. This section presents the significant issues, questions, and suggestions submitted by the commenters and HUD's responses.

Comment: HUD should expand online disclosures. One commenter recommended that HUD adopt a policy of proactively identifying records that are of interest to the public and posting such records online without waiting for FOIA requests. Accordingly, the commenter recommended that § 15.101 be revised to state that “HUD will proactively identify and disclose additional records of interest to the public.” The commenter added that the E-FOIA Act of 1996 mandates agencies to post online any information that has been released in response to a FOIA request and “is likely to become the subject of subsequent requests.” The commenter stated that some agencies have adopted the practice of posting all released records and suggested that HUD adopt this policy by revising its proposed rule to read: “HUD will post all records released in response to FOIA requests in a searchable format on the agency Web site.” Finally, the commenter stated that HUD should also revise § 15.101 by adopting a policy of publishing online its indexes of disclosed records.

Response: Section 15.101 revises HUD's FOIA regulation to reflect its current practice of proactively identifying and disclosing frequently requested records without waiting for a FOIA request. HUD developed the list of documents that it posts without request based on its prior experience regarding agency records that generally are of interest to the public. This list is not exhaustive and the final rule provides HUD the flexibility to post additional records without request. Releasing all records requested, along with an index, as requested by the commenter, would be excessively burdensome for the agency. HUD believes that § 15.101, as drafted, successfully balances its commitment to transparency as directed by President Obama's memorandum and Attorney General Holder's FOIA Guidance, within the scope of HUD's available resources. Accordingly, HUD has determined not to revise this section as the commenter recommended.

Comment: Information about the record sought. A commenter stated that clear and open communications between requesters and agency staff is vital to an effective, user-friendly FOIA process. Toward this end, the commenter recommended that HUD revise § 15.102(d)(2) to delete the first sentence that provides that FOIA requests “include, whenever possible, detailed and specific information about each record sought, such as the date, title or name, author, recipient, and subject matter of the record,” and substitute simply that FOIA requests should “reasonably describe the records sought.” The commenter also recommended that HUD delete the last sentence of this paragraph, which reads “Insufficient descriptions may lead HUD officials to contact the requester to seek additional information for their record search.”

Response: HUD agrees that clear and open communications is vital to an effective and user-friendly FOIA process. Based on HUD's experience, § 15.102(d)(2) supports this goal by describing the type of information that will assist HUD to more promptly and effectively respond to a FOIA request. HUD therefore declines to revise § 15.102(d)(2) as suggested by the commenter.

Comment: Notification of further clarification needed. A commenter stated that HUD should adopt a policy stating that it will contact the requester to seek clarification before denying a request on the basis of its not reasonably describing the records sought. The commenter suggested that HUD revise this section of the rule to state: “If HUD believes that a request may not reasonably describe the records sought, HUD will contact the requester to seek clarification. HUD will provide at least 30 days for the requester to respond. If the request has not been clarified after 30 days, HUD may decide to deny the request for not reasonably describing the records sought. If HUD determines that it must deny the request for not reasonably describing the records sought, it will notify the requester under the procedures in § 15.105(d)(2).”

Response: HUD's current policy is to request clarification prior to issuing an adverse determination based on a requester's failure to reasonably describe the records sought. In addition, depending on the specific request, HUD may on a case-by-case basis establish time limits for the requester to provide clarification. HUD, therefore, believes that imposing a 30-day time period would unnecessarily limit the staff's ability to exercise discretion in processing these requests. HUD, therefore, declines to revise § 15.105(d)(2) as recommended by the commenter.

Comment: Notification of delayed processing. A commenter recommended that HUD revise § 15.103(c) to state that HUD will notify requesters in writing as is required by FOIA when processing will be delayed.

Response: HUD agrees with the commenter and revises § 15.103(c) of the final rule to mirror the language of the FOIA by providing that, in unusual circumstances, the time limits prescribed in the regulation may be extended by written notice to the requester making such request. The written notice will also set forth the unusual circumstances for such extension and the date on which a determination is expected to be released.

Comment: Phrasing of revised language in § 15.104(c)(3). A commenter stated that language in proposed § 15.104(c)(3), which would require requesters who are not full-time members of the news media to submit a statement establishing that the requester “is a person whose main professional activity or occupation is information dissemination” when requesting expedited processing of a request, changes the meaning of FOIA. According to the commenter, this requirement is not found in FOIA and excludes an entire class of individuals, such as bloggers and other participants and thought leaders of the digital world who may be well positioned to expedite dissemination of information. The commenter recommended that the reference to “main professional activity or occupation” be removed and that § 15.104(c)(3) be revised to mirror FOIA.

Response: HUD agrees that the language in the final rule should mirror the language in the FOIA and therefore revises § 15.104(c)(3) to require that the requester be “primarily engaged in disseminating information.” References to requirements that the requester, “if not a full-time member of the news media, should establish that he or she is a person whose main professional activity or occupation is information dissemination,” have been deleted.

Comment: Notification of rerouting and referrals. Two commenters recommended that HUD revise the rule to improve communications with the requester. These commenters recommended that HUD notify the requester if it reroutes the request to another government agency or second HUD office, as is permitted during the 10-day window immediately following HUD's receipt of the initial FOIA request. The commenters described this change as a modest step that is consistent with the policies of other Federal agencies and which would benefit HUD by reducing the number of requester inquiries made to the HUD FOIA office.

Response: HUD's current policy is to notify requesters that their request is being rerouted or referred to another Federal agency or a second HUD office. Federal agencies to which requests are referred follow their own policies to ensure that requesters are notified that their FOIA requests have been received. In addition, requesters can identify the HUD FOIA office to which their request has been rerouted by checking the status of their request online at http://www.hud.gov/FOIA. Because these options are available to requesters, HUD declines to revise § 15.105 to adopt the commenters' recommendations.

Comment: Keeping requesters informed regarding updates on the status of their FOIA requests. A commenter recommended that HUD revise § 15.105 to include provisions that would require HUD to notify all requesters as soon as practicable of the estimated time it will take to complete a request and provide requesters with the opportunity to reformulate their requests. The commenter also recommended that HUD revise the rule to provide on the agency's Web site automated updates on the status of FOIA requests and suggested that HUD can implement this recommendation by joining the multiagency portal FOIA online, which allows requesters to track the status of requests online.

Response: Section 15.103(a) provides that HUD generally will respond to a FOIA request within 20 working days of receipt. As discussed in this preamble, HUD is revising this section in the final rule to state that it will provide written notice to requesters when it extends the time to process a request, and will also provide the requester with the date by which HUD expects to complete its processing of the request. Given the number, unpredictability, and variability in type and scope of FOIA requests that HUD receives, however, it would be extremely difficult for HUD to offer specific dates by which it could estimate the processing time for any specific FOIA request not subject to § 15.103(a). In addition, HUD provides requesters the ability to verify the status of their FOIA requests through an online tool that is similar to FOIAonline and that is available at http://www.hud.gov/FOIA. Finally, HUD believes that the rule already addresses the commenter's concern that requesters be granted an opportunity to reformulate requests during the process. For example, § 15.103(c) provides that HUD will offer the requester the opportunity to limit the scope of a request if HUD determines that providing responsive documents will take more than the 10 working days established in § 15.103(a). For these reasons, HUD declines to revise the rule as recommended by the commenter.

Comment: Electronic communications. A commenter recommended that HUD adopt a policy to communicate with requesters by email, where appropriate, as digital communications are changing the way government connects with citizens, and email communications could result in cost savings for the agency.

Response: The FOIA does not require agencies to use a specific means to communicate with requesters. HUD currently communicates with requesters by email, when appropriate, and will continue to do so. At the same time, HUD requires the discretion to use physical mail when it deems necessary. For these reasons, HUD declines to revise the rule as recommended by the commenter.

Comment: Plain communications. A commenter stated that the Plain Writing Act of 2010 directs agencies to use “writing that is clear, concise, well-organized, and follows other best practices appropriate to the subject or field and intended audience” in any document that “provides information about Federal Government benefit or service.” The commenter recommended that HUD revise § 15.105 to state: “HUD will use plain language in all communications with requesters.”

Response: HUD's current policy is to use plain language for all communications with the public. Some requests, however, require the production of records that are inherently technical or drafted for audiences with more technical backgrounds or expertise than the general public. As a result, HUD concludes that adding the language suggested by the commenter would be superfluous and may mislead requesters to expect HUD to translate technical documents into plain language. HUD therefore declines to amend this section in the final rule as requested by the commenter.

Comment: Release records on a rolling basis. A commenter stated that HUD should revise § 15.105 to require HUD to release records on a rolling basis, where requests involve a voluminous amount of material or searches in multiple locations.

Response: HUD's existing policy allows individual HUD FOIA offices to decide whether to release voluminous amounts of records on a rolling basis or all at once, depending on the specific request, the difficulty of collecting records responsive to the request, and the effective administration of the office's internal FOIA processing. HUD declines to revise this section of the rule in order to permit individual HUD FOIA offices the continued discretion over the appropriate approach to releasing records.

Comment: Rate of per-page printing. Two commenters stated that HUD's fee of $0.18 per page is a potential impediment to requests from members of the public, that it is higher than the rate imposed by other agencies, and that it does not reflect the amount that it costs HUD to print on a page. Both commenters recommended that HUD establish a standard fee of $0.10 per page. In addition, one commenter recommended that HUD revise the regulation to provide that it will not charge a fee if the total fee does not exceed $50, instead of the $25 threshold proposed by § 15.106(d)(4). The commenter stated that charging requesters the costs for producing small FOIA requests is uneconomical and contributes to processing delays. The commenter also stated that revising the $25 threshold would streamline the processing of requests that cost HUD less than $50.

Response: HUD appreciates the commenters' recommendations. HUD has reviewed its FOIA fee structure and agrees that it should revise its longstanding policy of charging $0.18 per page to the standard fee of $0.10 per page. Section 15.106(c) is revised to reflect this change. HUD's cost of responding to a request, however, has not changed. As a result, HUD will continue its practice of not charging the requester for processing a request if the total fee does not exceed $25. Based on HUD's experience, even at this $25 threshold, most requesters will still not be charged a processing fee.

Comment: Fee Waivers. A commenter stated that the proposed § 15.106(k)(5), which would give HUD discretion to consider “the cost effectiveness of its investment of administrative resources” when deciding whether to grant requests for a fee waiver or reduction, contradicts the plain language of FOIA. The commenter asserted that FOIA provides that agencies do not have authority to consider additional factors when deciding to waive or reduce fees if the statutory conditions are met. Accordingly, the commenter recommended that § 15.106(k)(5) be struck from the final rule.

Response: Section 552(a)(4)(A)(i) of the FOIA states that, “[i]n order to carry out the provisions of this section, each agency shall promulgate regulations . . . establishing procedures and guidelines for determining when such fees should be waived or reduced.” Accordingly, HUD is properly exercising its statutorily granted discretion in establishing that it will consider additional factors in deciding whether to grant requests for a fee waiver or reduction. HUD therefore declines to remove § 15.106(k)(5) from the final rule.

Comment: Applying “foreseeable harm” standard for withholding. A commenter stated that HUD should adopt a policy of applying a presumption of openness in processing requests and of only withholding information if it reasonably foresees that disclosure would harm an interest protected by one of the statutory exemptions. According to the commenter, applying this “foreseeable harm” standard would help to ensure that HUD does not improperly withhold information. The commenter recommends that HUD revise § 15.107 to add that “HUD will conduct a foreseeable harm analysis, which clearly identifies the harm that would occur with disclosure.”

Response: HUD withholds documents according to the nine FOIA statutory exemptions that protect various records from disclosure (see 5 U.S.C. 552(b)), in conjunction with existing case law and publicly available guidance issued by the Department of Justice. When the request is one that appropriately raises questions of foreseeable harm, HUD staff analyzes the request in light of this standard. Not all requests require this level of review. Accordingly, HUD declines to amend the regulation to incorporate a standard that is not currently reflected in the FOIA.

Comment: Technical amendment to source reference. A commenter recommended that § 15.107(a) be updated to refer to the most current Executive order regarding classified information, which is Executive Order 13526, issued December 29, 2009.

Response: HUD agrees with the commenter and updates this reference in the final rule.

Comment: Avoiding frivolous claims of confidential business information. A commenter suggested that HUD require that submitters of confidential business information use good faith efforts to designate any information that such submitters consider exempt from disclosure under FOIA Exemption 4, and that HUD indicate in this final rule what constitutes a “good faith effort.” Specifically, the commenter suggested editing § 15.108(b) to read: “A blanket designation on each page of a submission that all information contained on the page is protected from disclosure under Exemption 4 presumptively will not be considered a good faith effort.”

Response: Section 15.108(b) of the rule already requires submitters of business information to “use good faith efforts to designate . . . any portion of its submission that it considers to be protected from disclosure under Exemption 4.” Furthermore, the commenter's suggested language could create undue processing delays by creating the presumption that entire pages marked as “business information” are not marked as such in good faith. In practice, the determination of what constitutes a good faith effort does not hinge on the number of submitted pages entirely marked as “business information.” HUD therefore declines to amend this provision.

Comment: Decreased notifications to submitters of “business information.” The commenter also suggested that in the interest of avoiding undue delays, HUD establish that it is unnecessary to notify submitters of business information if HUD determines that the claim of confidential business information is obviously frivolous. The commenter also recommended that HUD provide specific time limits, generally 5 working days, for submitters to object to the release of submitted information and this proposed change be incorporated in § 15.108(e).

Response: HUD's current policy regarding the obligation to notify submitters of business information is to provide all of the basic procedural protections that HUD is required to give submitters under Executive Order 12600. It currently is already HUD's practice to grant submitters a reasonable number of days to object to the release of submitted information, as is required by Executive Order 12600, and to require that such objections be justified. HUD therefore declines to amend this provision in the final rule.

Comment: Copies of the original request and adverse determination. A commenter stated that requiring requesters to provide a copy of their original request is unnecessary and unfair because original requests might be difficult to locate after years pass between the time of submission and the appeal. The commenter added that HUD should remove this requirement, as well as the requirement for a copy of the adverse determination, from the proposed rule because many individuals do not have access to a scanner or a photocopier. The commenter suggested that HUD instead “encourage” appellants to provide these two copies.

Response: Because HUD often processes multiple requests from the same requester, provision of a copy of the original request and of the original adverse determination helps HUD's reviewing staff to ensure that they issue accurate responses to the original concern or request. Requesting the submission of these copies with an appeal does not pose an unnecessary and unfair burden upon requesters. HUD believes that most requesters have several tools available to make photocopies of important documents, with no exceptional inconvenience to them. In exceptional circumstances, however, requesters might be able to obtain a scanned or printed copy of their original request by contacting the HUD FOIA office handling the request. HUD, therefore, declines to amend § 15.110 of the proposed rule as recommended.

Comment: Providing a longer time period to submit appeals. A commenter suggested that HUD provide requesters with a minimum of 60 days to submit their administrative appeals, instead of the 30 days provided under the rule. The commenter added that this would provide requesters adequate time to gather the necessary information and to formulate any arguments they wish to make in the appeal.

Response: The FOIA provides agencies discretion in setting forth deadlines by which requesters must file their administrative appeals of adverse determinations. HUD's current policy of allowing a requester 30 days to submit an appeal is intended to ensure that FOIA requests and disputes are resolved as promptly as possible. Because an extension of this filing period would defeat this policy goal, HUD declines to amend this provision to, instead, grant requesters 60 days to file appeals to adverse determinations as recommended.

Comment: Electronic process for appeal submissions. A commenter recommended that HUD provide requesters the option to submit their administrative appeals by email or through the HUD Web site, as opposed to the current process, which requires the submission of appeals “in writing to the address specified in HUD's notice responding to a FOIA request.”

Response: HUD does not believe that § 15.110 of the proposed rule (redesignated as § 15.109 in this final rule) precludes the submission of an appeal electronically. Nevertheless, HUD has clarified that appeals may be submitted electronically by stating, “If the letter of appeal is transmitted electronically or by a means other than the U.S. Postal Service, it must be received in the appropriate office by the close of business on the 30th calendar day after the date of HUD's letter of determination.” HUD agrees with the commenter, however, that the public should have the option of submitting their appeals electronically. As a result, HUD has recently expanded its FOIA management system (FMS2), to accommodate the receipt of FOIA appeals electronically. HUD's FOIA management system includes a public access link that allows members of the public to submit FOIA requests electronically and track the status of their requests. HUD agrees that extending these capabilities to the submission of appeals will expedite the review of appeals and ensure that the public is better informed regarding the status of their appeals.

Comment: Notifying requesters of dispute resolution services available for appeal determinations. A commenter stated that HUD should adopt a policy of notifying requesters of dispute resolution services in appeal determination letters. The commenter added that HUD should revise the language at § 15.111(a)(2)(ii) of the proposed rule to add: “HUD will provide the requester with the name and contact information of the Office of Government Information Services, which offers mediation services to resolve disputes between FOIA requesters and Federal agencies as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation.”

Response: HUD has considered the commenter's suggestion and agrees to provide requesters notification of dispute resolution services in the appeal determination letters. In addition, HUD will post the contact information for the Office of Government Information Services on its FOIA Web site. See § 15.110(a)(2)(iii).

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if the regulation is necessary, to select the regulatory approach that maximizes net benefits. Because this final rule incorporates changes enacted by the OPEN Government Act of 2007 and otherwise updates and streamlines HUD's current FOIA regulation, the rule was determined to not be a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and therefore was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

This final rule is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321). The revision of FOIA-related provisions of 24 CFR part 15 falls within the exclusion provided by 24 CFR 50.19(c)(1) in that it does not direct, provide for assistance or loan and mortgage insurance for or otherwise govern or regulate real property acquisition, disposition, leasing, rehabilitation, alteration, demolition, or new construction, or establish, revise, or provide for standards for construction or construction materials, manufactured housing, or occupancy.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule establishes the process by which HUD will respond to requests for information under the FOIA. Costs assessed by HUD for search, review, and duplication required to process the information requested by a requester are limited by the FOIA to direct costs and are not economically significant. As a result, the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments and is not required by statute, or the rule preempts state law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive order. This final rule does not have federalism implications and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments or preempt state law within the meaning of the Executive order.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and on the private sector. This final rule does not impose any Federal mandates on any state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector, within the meaning of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, HUD amends 24 CFR part 15 as follows:

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior written 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 due to the fact that this military training is necessary to train and qualify Navy personnel in the use of explosives. This training is imperative to ensure that Navy personnel located within the Fifth Coast Guard District are properly trained and qualified before conducting military and national security operations for use in securing ports and waterways. Navy policy requires that Navy personnel meet and maintain certain qualification standards before being allowed to carry out certain missions. Failure to conduct this required training at this time will result in a lapse in personnel qualification standards and, consequently, the inability of Navy personnel to carry out important national security functions at any time. The Coast Guard received the information about this event on July 20, 2015; delaying the effective date by first publishing an NPRM would be contrary to the safety zone's intended objectives as well as to the public interest because immediate action is needed to protect persons and vessels against the hazards associated. The Coast Guard will provide advance notification to users of the affected waterway via marine information broadcasts and local notice to mariners. The Coast Guard will provide advance notifications to users of the affected waterway via marine information broadcasts and local notice to mariners.

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. Due to the need for immediate action, the restriction on vessel traffic is necessary to protect life, property and the environment; therefore, a 30-day notice is impracticable. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the safety zone's intended objectives of protecting persons and vessels, and enhancing public and maritime safety.

The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to propose, establish, and define regulatory safety zones.

The purpose of this safety zone is to protect the participants, patrol vessels, and other vessels transiting navigable waters of the James River, in the vicinity of the James River Reserve Fleet, from hazards associated with military explosives operations. The potential hazards to mariners within the safety zone include shock waves, flying shrapnel, and loud noises.

The Captain of the Port of Hampton Roads is establishing a safety zone on specified waters of the James River, in the vicinity of the James River Reserve Fleet, in Newport News, VA. The safety zone will encompass all navigable waters within a 1500 foot radius of the SS DEL MONTE location at position 37°06′11″ N., 076°38′40″ W. (NAD 1983). This safety zone will be established and enforced from 8 a.m. on August 17, 2015 until 4 p.m. on August 21, 2015. Access to the safety zone will be restricted during the specified dates and times. Except for participants and vessels authorized by the Captain of the Port of his Representative, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area.

The Captain of the Port will give notice of the enforcement of the safety zone by all appropriate means to provide the widest dissemination of notice to the affected segments of the public. This includes publication in the Local Notice to Mariners and Marine Information Broadcasts.

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

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. Although this safety zone restricts vessel traffic through the regulated area, the effect of this rule will not be significant because: (i) This rule will only be enforced for the limited size and duration of the event; and (ii) the Coast Guard will make extensive notification to the maritime community via marine information broadcasts so mariners may adjust their plans accordingly.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule affects the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in waters of the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth River during the enforcement period.

This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: (i) The safety zone is of limited size and duration, and (ii) Sector Hampton Roads will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the James River allowing mariners to adjust their plans accordingly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking A. Regulatory History and Information

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The final details for this event were not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect the public and vessels from the hazards associated with low flying aircraft and bridging operations spanning the width of the river for a U.S. Army exercise.

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

The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish safety zones: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

On August 18, 2015 and August 19, 2015, the U.S. Army will conduct a bridging exercise spanning the width of the river. The Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, has determined that the low flying aircraft and bridging operations spanning the width of the river associated with this exercise will pose a significant risk to public safety and property. This safety zone is necessary to protect the public from the hazards associated with low flying aircraft and bridging operations.

With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of the public and the participants during a U.S. Army exercise on a portion of the Des Plaines River from mile marker 277.8 to mile marker 279.2. This safety zone will be enforced from 6:30 a.m. until 6:30 p.m. on August 18, 2015 and August 19, 2015. If the event is postponed due to inclement weather, the safety zone will be enforced from 6:30 a.m. until 6:30 p.m. on August 20, 2015, the allotted rain date. This zone will encompass all waters of the Des Plaines River from mile marker 277.8 to mile marker 279.2.

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, or a designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or a designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

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

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

We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced between the hours of 6:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. during a two day period. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this temporary rule on small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit on a portion of the Des Plaines River from mile marker 277.8 to mile marker 279.2 on August 18, 2015 and August 19, 2015 or on August 20, 2015.

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

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

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On November 21, 2014, VA published in the Federal Register (79 FR 69379) a proposed rule to amend VA regulations regarding the presence of animals on VA property. This rule authorizes the access of service animals when these animals accompany individuals with disabilities seeking admittance to VA property in a manner consistent with applicable Federal law, and clarifies the authority of a VA facility head or designee to allow non-service animals to be present on VA property.

Interested persons were invited to submit comments to the proposed rule on or before January 20, 2015, and VA received 96 comments. All of the issues raised by the commenters that concerned at least one portion of the rule can be grouped together by similar topic, and we have organized our discussion of the comments accordingly. For the reasons set forth in the proposed rule and below, we are adopting the proposed rule as final, with changes, explained below, to proposed 38 CFR 1.218(a)(11).

Multiple commenters stated that it was unclear to what groups of individuals the proposed rule would apply. One commenter specifically expressed concern as to whether a service animal that assisted a visitor of a veteran would be permitted on VA property. We clarify for these commenters that this VA regulation applies to everyone seeking access to VA property, to include employees, veterans, and visitors. The rule as proposed did not contain any limiting language to restrict applicability to only certain groups of individuals, and we therefore do not make any changes to the final rule based on these comments. Several commenters applauded the development by VA of a uniform regulation for service animal access for all VA property, and did not recommend any changes. VA appreciates these comments and believes that this regulation will allow for more consistent access of VA property by service animals.

One commenter asserted that VA should use the term “assistance animal” instead of “service animals” throughout the proposed regulation because, they assert, the term “service animals” is understood more narrowly in the service animal industry to refer only to those animals that assist with mobility impairments. We do not make any changes based on these comments. We disagree that the term “assistance animal” is better understood than “service animal” by those in the service animal industry. Additionally, this regulation is written for a broader audience than just those in the service animal industry, to include any member of the public that may have need to access VA property. Indeed, the term “service animal” as defined in the proposed rule is well understood by the general public because it is consistent with the definition of “service animal” in the regulations that implement the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). We therefore do not make any changes based on these comments. A commenter also urged that VA use the phrase “guide dog” versus “seeing eye dog.” We do not make any changes based on this comment because, as proposed and in this final rule, “seeing eye dog” is replaced in § 1.218(a)(11) with the term “service animal,” and “service animal” includes those dogs trained for the purpose of assisting individuals with a sensory disability (to include visual impairments). Other commenters further asserted that the definition of “service animal” in proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(viii) be changed to refer to a dog that does “work or performs tasks” as opposed to a dog that does “work and performs tasks.” Particularly, commenters noted that VA used both these phrases interchangeably in proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(viii), and asserted that this was confusing. We agree with these comments, and clarify that the intent was to use only the phrase “work or performs tasks” throughout the definition of “service animal.” We therefore make changes to ensure that the phrase “work or perform tasks” is used consistently throughout § 1.218(a)(11)(viii).

One commenter was concerned that breed restrictions may be imposed based on a perception that certain breeds of dogs are prone to violence. This VA regulation does not impose breed restrictions, and VA will not otherwise pose breed restrictions for purposes of access of service animals on VA property. VA will only deny access to VA property or will remove a service animal from VA property based on an individual assessment in accordance with objective criteria of the risks that the individual service animal poses to the health or safety of people or other service animals. VA makes no changes based on this comment.

Several commenters sought clarification between a “service animal” and a “pet,” and whether animals other than dogs were included in the definition of “service animal.” As proposed, § 1.218(a)(11)(viii) defined a “service animal” as any dog that accompanies an individual with a disability and that is individually trained for that purpose. The definition in proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(viii) specifically excluded any species of animal other than a dog, and specifically required that the work or tasks performed by the service animal be directly related to the individual's disability. Further, § 1.218(a)(11)(viii) distinguished that the crime deterrent effects of an animal's presence, or the provision of emotional support or well-being, comfort, or companionship do not constitute “work or tasks.” The definition as proposed in § 1.218(a)(11)(viii) clearly excluded any animal other than a dog, and also excluded any dog that is not individually trained to assist an individual with a disability. As proposed, § 1.218(a)(11)(viii) makes clear that unless the animal is a dog that is individually trained to do something that qualifies as work or a task, the animal is a pet or other type of animal and does not qualify as a service animal. We believe the definition in proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(viii) is clear enough to exclude a “pet,”, and we therefore do not make any changes based on these comments.

Several commenters wanted VA to permit miniature horses on VA properties. As discussed in the proposed rule, VA believes the presence of a miniature horse poses legitimate safety concerns, both to people on VA property and the miniature horse, especially on VA healthcare properties. This final rule reiterates VA's determination from the proposed rule, that, in light of a review of the multiple assessment factors, miniature horses are excluded from VA properties. We restate from the proposed rule that these assessment factors include the larger size of a miniature horse as well as their reduced predictability in behaving in accordance with typical standards of public access required of service animals. Additional factors from the proposed rule that VA considers to support the exclusion of miniature horses include elimination of horse waste, a heightened flee response of a miniature horse, the smooth flooring common to VA properties, and the likely disruptive attention a horse would receive. We therefore do not make any changes based on these comments.

Many commenters expressed concern that the proposed rule restricted access to only those dogs trained or certified by Assistance Dogs International (ADI), International Guide Dog Federation (IGDF), or one of their affiliated organizations. The proposed rule did not create such restrictions; as proposed, VA's standard for service animal access is consistent with regulations that implement the ADA and is not dependent on how the service animal was trained or by whom, but instead depends on the service animal's ability to behave in accordance with typical public access standards for public settings. Therefore, we do not make any changes based on these comments. VA notes that a service animal must be certified by ADI or IGDF as a requirement for veterans seeking service dog benefits under 38 CFR 17.148, however, those requirements for benefits do not apply to access. Conversely, several commenters asserted that service animal access to VA properties should be restricted to only those animals that are certified or trained by ADI, IGDF, or an affiliate—these commenters articulated various negative experiences where a “fake service animal” threatened their person, their service animal, or another person while on VA property or other property. VA recognizes that these commenters have legitimate concerns related to dogs that are not appropriately trained possibly being able to access VA property under the guise of a “service dog,” because VA will not be requiring any proof of training or certification for purposes of access. However, the lack of such a documentation requirement is consistent with regulations that implement the ADA, and otherwise provides the benefit of the doubt to individuals with disabilities unless the service animal's behavior necessitates that access be denied or the service animal be removed. VA does not make any changes based on these comments, but we stress that § 1.218(a)(11)(ii) still provides for removal of a service animal from certain areas on VA property if the animal exhibits behavior or other signs that it is a threat to the health or safety of individuals or other service animals on VA property.

Several commenters objected to the requirements in proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(vii) to provide proof of a service animal's good health when an individual will be accompanied by a service animal while receiving treatment in a Veterans Health Administration (VHA) residential program. Some of these commenters alluded to an administrative burden of “registering” a service animal to obtain access to the VA property. We clarify for these commenters that § 1.218(a)(11)(vii) only applies to situations where an individual would be accompanied by a service animal for the duration of his or her treatment in a VHA residential program—these documentation requirements would not apply for more general access to a VA property, such as to receive outpatient care provided by VA. The presentation of certain records as proof of an animal's health required in § 1.218(a)(11)(vii) is necessary when a service animal will have routine and constant interaction with employees, veterans, patients, and visitors over the course of an extended period of time in a residential setting, so that VA may ensure patient care, patient safety, and infection control standards are met. However, we do agree with the commenters who noted that some of the requirements in § 1.218(a)(11)(vii) as proposed could create an undue administrative burden on both individuals receiving treatment as well as VA staff. We therefore make changes in the final rule to remove § 1.218(a)(11)(vii)(A)-(C), and to revise § 1.218(a)(11)(vii) to require that the individual receiving treatment in a residential program must only provide documentation that confirms that the service animal has a current rabies vaccine and current core canine vaccines. We further revise the conditions in § 1.218(a)(11)(vii) related to when a rabies vaccine and core canine vaccines are considered “current” to require “a current rabies vaccine as determined by state and local public health requirements, and current core canine vaccines as dictated by local veterinary practice standards (e.g. distemper, parvovirus, and adenovirus-2).” These changes will retain the requirement for documentation of basic canine vaccinations that we believe is necessary to ensure the service animal is in good health, while providing more flexibility of those required vaccinations in accordance with local requirements. These revisions will also remove the requirement for proof of a comprehensive exam within the past 12 months, as well as remove the requirement that an individual must otherwise confirm in writing that the service animal is healthy. We believe that the revised documentation requirements in § 1.218(a)(11)(vii) now relate only to the basic canine vaccines that an the individual would have merely as a function of being a responsible dog owner, and therefore providing such documentation to VA for confirmation is not burdensome. We make similar changes to the documentation requirements related to the health of non-service animals in § 1.218(a)(11)(ix)(C)-(E), specifically to clarify that the prophylactic medication requirement for non-service animals applies only to parasite control medications (e.g. monthly flea and tick prevention), and to clarify that the health requirements for non-service animals are consistent with local veterinary practice standards.

One commenter suggested that the mere presence of a flea or tick on a service animal should not be grounds for removal of a service animal under § 1.218(a)(11)(ii)(C)(2), particularly for individuals being treated in VA residential settings. VA does not make any changes based on this comment. We reiterate from the proposed rule that the presence of a flea or tick poses a threat to the health and safety of others, as fleas, ticks, and other parasites can be spread by physical contact and close proximity and can reproduce quickly and in great volume to create infestation conditions that are much more difficult to remediate, versus removing a service animal with visible external parasites. We note, however, that under § 1.218(a)(11)(ii)(C), VA staff must complete an individualized assessment based on objective indications, such as external signs of parasites, to ascertain the severity of risk to the health or safety of people or other service animals.

Several commenters suggested that VA revise § 1.218(a)(11)(viii) to permit service dogs in training to access VA property. Some of these commenters reasoned that a service dog in training could be well trained enough to dependably behave safely in public settings, even without having fully completed their training. Other commenters expressed that VA properties could be used as training opportunities for service animals. VA seeks to maintain a safe and therapeutic environment at its properties. In a complex hospital environment, we believe that service animals should be fully trained and a “service animal in training” is not fully trained. We therefore do not revise § 1.218(a)(11)(viii) to permit service animals in training.

Several commenters inquired as to how VA's service animal access rule would be enforced, particularly with regard to staff training. Some commenters expressed concerns about “fake service animals” interfering with the need for people and service animals to safely access VA properties. Others expressed concerns that VA's proposed rule would establish a barrier to access or expressed concern regarding the authority of varying facility directors to devise implementation criteria that would restrict access outside of the proposed rule. VA does not make any changes based on these comments. The final rule establishes a set of standardized criteria that can be uniformly enforced on VA property, and removes variation amongst individual facilities that existed prior to this final rule. A service animal meeting VA's requirements under this final rule will not be subject to any barrier to access. And once on VA property, service animals are subject to the same terms, conditions and regulations that govern the admission of the public to VA property, to include certain exceptions on VHA properties to ensure patient care, patient safety, and infection control standards are not compromised. Therefore, service animals would only be denied access or removed if, based on an individualized assessment that is subject to objective indications in the final rule to ascertain severity of risk, there is cause for access denial or removal. VA anticipates that in most cases concerns related to access and removal will be communicated by veterans, employees, or visitors to VA staff members (including security and law enforcement) who will manage any concerns and facilitate an appropriate response. VA anticipates all appropriate staff members will be trained on what is and what is not allowed under this regulation and how it should be implemented.

Several commenters expressed concern about the requirement in proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(i) that the service animal be in a guiding harness or on a leash, as well as under the control of the individual with a disability, at all times while on VA property. These commenters asserted that multiple disabilities might prevent an individual from physically controlling a service animal via a harness or leash, or that the service animal's presence on a leash or other tether at all times might prevent that service animal from completing work or tasks they are trained to perform. Further, some commenters urged VA to adopt a standard that mimics that of the regulations that implement the ADA, whereby control over the service animal by the handler can be in the form of voice control. VA agrees with these comments, and amends § 1.218(a)(11)(i) to incorporate comparable language to that used in the regulations that implement the ADA. Cf. 28 CFR 36.302(c)(4).

Likewise, after considering related comments, VA recognizes that individuals with disabilities may require the assistance of an alternate handler to control the service animal while on VA property. The need for an alternate handler may arise when the individual with the disability is unable to control the service animal because of the care the individual receives; or when the service animal, individual with a disability, and the alternate handler routinely operate as part of a team when accessing public areas. For this reason, VA amends § 1.218(a)(11)(i) and (a)(11)(ii)(A) to allow for an alternate handler to also be in control of the service animal. Specifically, § 1.218(a)(11)(i) will state that a service animal shall be under the control of the person with the disability or an alternate handler at all times while on VA property. Section 1.218(a)(11)(i) will also state that a service animal shall have a harness, leash, or other tether, unless either the handler is unable because of a disability to use a harness, leash, or other tether, or the use of a harness, leash, or other tether would interfere with the service animal's safe, effective performance of work or tasks, in which case the service animal must be otherwise under the handler's control (e.g., voice control, signals, or other effective means). We reiterate, that at no time is any VA employee to be responsible for the control of the service animal, as set forth in § 1.218(a)(11)(i).

Several commenters inquired into whose responsibility is it to clean up animal waste and if VA properties have to designate an area for animals to relieve themselves. Commensurate with the requirements for access is a properly housebroken service animal. Should a service animal relieve bowel or bladder on VA property, it is the responsibility of the handler or the alternate handler to properly dispose of the waste in accordance with standards appropriate for public settings. VA again notes that at no time is any employee to be responsible to control a service animal and part of the access requirements is that an animal is housebroken. VA makes no change based on this comment.

Several commenters objected to the absolute prohibition of service animal access to certain areas of VHA property in proposed 1.218(a)(11)(iii), citing contrary standards that permit such access in regulations that implement the ADA as well as guidance issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Particularly, commenters objected to the categorical exclusion of service animals from inpatient hospital settings to include locked mental health units (in proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(iii)(C)), and from patient rooms or treatment areas where patients may have an animal allergy or phobia (in proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(iii)(E)). VA cited three examples of acute inpatient hospital settings in proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(iii)(C) (intensive care units, stabilization units, and locked mental health units) in a representative but not exhaustive list of areas that could be covered by this exclusion. In light of the comments received, VA revises § 1.218(a)(11)(iii)(C) to remove these examples, and instead qualify the exclusion of service animals in acute inpatient settings to exclude such animals when their presence is not part of a documented treatment plan. VA agrees with the commenters that there are scenarios in which a service animal on any of the specific areas in proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(iii)(C) may provide its services when the individual being treated or an alternate handler can control a service animal as part of a treatment plan established by the clinical care team. Although VA used CDC guidance to justify the area-based exclusions in proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(iii)(C) (see 79 FR 69379, 69381), VA believes that this revision is still consistent with CDC's guidance because the service animal would not be permitted to access the inpatient area if not part of a documented treatment plan. The animal would require a staff assessment under § 1.218(a)(11)(ii)(C) to evaluate any threat to the health or safety of patients or staff. A service animal could still be removed under § 1.218(a)(11)(ii) if it presented a risk to patient safety or infection control standards after gaining access to an acute inpatient setting. For these same reasons, VA removes proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(iii)(E), the prohibition of the presence of service animals in patient rooms or areas where a patient may have an animal allergy or phobia. Again, a service animal could be removed from such an area if the animal posed a risk to patient safety or health, under § 1.218(a)(11)(ii). By removing proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(iii)(E), we will renumber proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(iii)(F) and (iii)(G) as (iii)(E) and (iii)(F), respectively.

However, VA will not remove all categorical area-based exclusions of service animals on VHA property from proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(iii). VA's healthcare facilities reflect evidence based standards governing safe operation of a healthcare facility, patient care, and infection control. Consistent with CDC guidance, VA still finds certain locations such as operating rooms, surgical suites, areas where invasive procedures are being performed, decontamination, sterile processing, sterile storage areas, food preparation areas (not to include public food service areas), and any areas where protective barrier measures are required, to be inappropriate environments for a service animal. One commenter recommended removing the representative examples in proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(iii)(A)-(C) as redundant of places where protective barrier measures are required. We decline to remove these examples because they add clarity regarding the types of areas where access must be restricted to ensure patient care, patient safety or infection control standards are not compromised. While we will retain these area-based exclusions and the examples provided in the final rule, in response to comments we will revise § 1.218(a)(11)(iii)(F) as proposed, renumbered as § 1.218(a)(11)(iii)(E), to include the clarifying parenthetical “(not to include public food service areas).” We will also revise § 1.218(a)(11)(iii)(G) as proposed, renumbered as § 1.218(a)(11)(iii)(F), to refer to areas “where personal protective clothing must be worn or barrier protective measures must be taken to enter,” instead of referring to areas that require “personal protective equipment” to be worn. We agree with commenters that “personal protective equipment” in proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(iii)(G) could be interpreted to encompass even the wearing of basic equipment by patients, staff, or visitors like paper face masks or examination gloves, which could qualify nearly any area of a VHA medical facility as categorically excluding the presence of a service animal. The revisions to proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(iii)(G) (§ 1.218(a)(11)(iii)(F) as renumbered) more accurately describe the types of areas that a service animal will be restricted from entering.

We emphasize that even with these changes to the area-based exclusions in § 1.218(a)(11)(iii), a specific service animal may still be individually denied access or removed if it does not meet the standards in § 1.218(a)(11)(i) and (a)(11)(ii), namely that the animal must be controlled (by the individual or an alternate handler that is not a VA employee), be housebroken, and not pose a threat to the health and safety of people or other service animals.

Several commenters expressed concerns regarding the provision of service dogs, service dog training, and service dog benefits by VA. Particularly, some commenters asserted that VA should assist veterans to obtain a service dog and have such a dog trained and certified. These comments are beyond the scope of this rule, and we therefore do not make any changes. We note, however, that the provision of service dog benefits by VA is regulated at 38 CFR 17.148. Other commenters noted the benefits of service animals for the treatment of PTSD, but did not necessarily suggest any changes to the proposed rule. Again, these comments are beyond the scope of this rule, and we therefore do not make any changes. Some commenters requested that the final rule provide examples of what VA considers to be “work” or “tasks” that a service animal may be trained to perform, either in the preamble or through revisions to the regulation text. Commenters noted that such examples would be particularly helpful for a service animal that might assist an individual with a mental disability or illness. We decline to make revisions to the regulation text or provide examples in the preamble of this final rule. However, we do provide as reference here the supplemental guidance issued by the Department of Justice when it last issued regulations on this subject in 2010, specifically on what constitutes “work or tasks” that a service animal may provide (see Appendix A to 28 CFR part 36, Guidance on Revisions to ADA Regulation on Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and Commercial Facilities, 75 FR 56236, 56258). This reference provides examples of work or tasks that VA understands to be performed by service animals for individuals with disabilities so that such individuals may better navigate public spaces. By providing this reference of examples of work and tasks in the context of public access, VA is not expressing a position on the efficacy of such dogs for the treatment of the disabilities of the individuals.

One commenter urged VA to include emotional support animals in the definition of “service animal” in § 1.218(a)(11)(viii) as proposed. The commenter asserted that because many veterans with PTSD use emotional support animals in their homes, that refusing access to emotional support animals on VA property could discourage use of VA services by such veterans. This same commenter also made a reference to Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations and guidance that create exclusions for public housing's “no pet” policies for certain animals, to include permitting access for emotional support animals in applicable circumstances, and suggested that VA consider developing a similar rule regarding emotional support animal access on VA property. Another commenter suggested adopting HUD's approach in the context of VA's residential treatment programs. VA does not disagree that some veterans may use emotional support animals, nor disagree with the commenters' subjective accounts that such animals have improved the quality of their lives. However, the HUD regulations and guidance referenced by the commenters appropriately apply in the context of public housing. In particular, the HUD regulations and guidance do not require an animal to be individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of the individual with a disability. However, there is a distinction between the presence of an animal in public areas and the functions that animal performs to enable an individual to use public services and public accommodations (service animal), as compared to the presence and use of a comfort or emotional support animal in the home (emotional support animal). Regarding VHA's residential treatment programs, these programs involve shared spaces amongst multiple veterans, where there is an active treatment component that involves the participation of not only the veterans but also treatment providers as well as other members of the public at times. Therefore, we interpret VHA residential programs to be public treatment spaces (just as the other areas of VHA property that are specified in this final rule), rather than a residential space analogous to the HUD public housing context. We therefore do not make any changes based on these comments.

Commenters expressed concern about the area-based restrictions for property under the control of the National Cemetery Administration (NCA) in proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(iv). We interpret such comments to be the result of a misunderstanding by commenters that new restrictions were being created in the proposed rule when in fact the proposed area-based restrictions reflect existing restrictions on NCA property in accordance with rules requiring access on the same terms, conditions, and regulations that generally govern admission of the public to the property. That is, the proposed and final rules only clarify that where an individual may not access NCA property (i.e., in NCA construction or maintenance sites, or in NCA open interment areas), so, too, a service animal may not access such property. This rule does not affect the right of an individual to be accompanied by their service animal on NCA grounds in those areas where the general public is permitted. However, these comments raise the possibility that the provision regarding restriction of access to open interment areas may be perceived as overly restrictive. We have, therefore, made a change to § 1.218(a)(11)(iv)(A) to remove the reference to columbaria (as columbaria pose minimal safety issues), and to indicate that individuals may be permitted to observe an individual interment or inurnment accompanied by a service animal. This change will allow family or representatives (such as clergy), accompanied by their service animals, to observe an interment or inurnment when requested and when such observation can be safely accommodated.

VA makes one technical correction in § 1.218(a)(11)(viii). In the last sentence, VA is replacing “of this chapter” with a complete citation “38 CFR 17.148.” VA also makes several minor, non-substantive edits for clarity such as removing the first commas appearing in proposed § 1.218(a)(11)(ix)(C) and (D), replacing the word “on” with the word “in” three places in § 1.218(a)(11)(ix)(E) in reference to VA Community Living Centers, and adding the clarifying phrase “with respect to an individual” to the definition of a disability in § 1.218(a)(11)(x).

One commenter asked for clarification if animals other than dogs can participate in Animal Assisted Activities (AAA) or Animal Assisted Therapy (AAT) programs under § 1.218(a)(11)(ix)(C) and (ix)(D) as proposed. Unlike service animals under the proposed and final rules, there is no species restriction for AAA or AAT animals, and AAA or AAT animals are permitted on VHA property only at the discretion of the VA facility head or designee. Should an AAA or AAT animal that is not a dog meet the requirements in § 1.218(a)(11)(ix)(C) and (D), a VA facility head or designee may grant that animal access to VA property. Another commenter suggested that VA allow for pets to visit patients in unique circumstances such as end-of-life situations. As with other species of animals, there is no categorical restriction for AAA or AAT animals that would necessarily exclude a personal pet in an end-of-life or other special circumstance. Should an animal serve an AAA or AAT purpose and meet the requirements in § 1.218(a)(11)(ix)(C) and (D), a VA facility head or designee may grant that animal access to VA property. In addition, a commenter suggested that AAA and AAT animals be allowed on VA property only when their handler or organization has liability insurance. We do not disagree that liability insurance would be a sensible requirement, particularly as AAA is often conducted in group settings. However, VA believes that any liability insurance would be better addressed outside of a regulatory requirement by the VA facility head or designee and the AAA or AAT handler or organization prior to establishing a particular program at a facility. VA makes no changes based on these comments.

For all of the reasons noted above, VA is adopting the rule as final with changes as noted to 38 CFR 1.218.

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

This final rule includes a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) that requires approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Accordingly, under 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), VA has submitted a copy of this rulemaking action to OMB for review.

OMB assigns a control number for each collection of information it approves. VA 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. Section 1.218(a)(11) contains a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. OMB has approved the information collection requirement in this section as an emergency clearance under control number 2900-0831. This emergency clearance expires on December 31, 2015, before which time VA will submit to OMB a request for permanent clearance.

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

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

The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this final rule have been examined and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at http://www.regulations.gov, usually within 48 hours after the rulemaking document is published. Additionally, a copy of this rulemaking and its impact analysis are available on VA's Web site at http://www.va.gov/orpm/, by following the link for “VA Regulations Published From FY 2004 Through Fiscal Year to Date.”

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 an expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This final rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers and titles for the programs affected by this document are 64.007, Blind Rehabilitation Centers; 64.009, Veterans Medical Care Benefits; 64.010, Veterans Nursing Home Care; and 64.011, Veterans Dental Care.

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Robert L. Nabors II, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on June 5, 2015, for publication.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, VA amends 38 CFR part 1 as follows:

The contents of this preamble are listed in the following outline:

The EPA is making this revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the EPA views this revision as noncontroversial and anticipates no adverse comment. The rationale for this rulemaking is described in detail below. In the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, the EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve this revision to the RVP gasoline standard that applies in Mecklenburg and Gaston counties should adverse comments be filed. If the EPA receives no adverse comment, the EPA will not take further action on the proposed rule. If the EPA receives adverse comment on this rule or any portion of this rule, the EPA will withdraw the direct final rule or the portion of the rule that received adverse comment. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this rulemaking. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

Entities potentially affected by this rule are fuel producers and distributors who do business in North Carolina.

The above table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. The table lists the types of entities of which the EPA is aware that potentially could be affected by this rule. Other types of entities not listed on the table could also be affected by this rule. To determine whether your organization could be affected by this rule, you should carefully examine the regulations in 40 CFR 80.27. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, call the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

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

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0017 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before October 16, 2015. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0017, by one of the following methods:

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

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

• Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

In the Federal Register of March 4, 2015 (80 FR 11611) (FRL-9922-68), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance petition (PP 4F8292) by Suterra, LLC, 20950 NE Talus Place, Bend, OR 97701. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of lavandulyl senecioate in or on all raw agricultural commodities when applied to growing crops at a rate not to exceed 150 grams of active ingredient per acre per year. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner Suterra, LLC, which is available in the docket via http://www.regulations.gov. No comments were received on the notice of filing.

Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .” Additionally, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D) requires that the Agency consider “available information concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues” and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings.

Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability, and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.

Lavandulyl senecioate (5-methyl-2-(1-methylethenyl)-4-hexenyl 3-methyl-2-butonate) is a technical grade synthetic arthropod pheromone. This arthropod pheromone is structurally similar to and mimics a naturally occurring pheromone produced by the female vine mealybug (Planococcus ficus) to attract males for mating. This pheromone is used to disrupt the normal mating cycle of the vine mealybug and has a non-toxic mode of action.

As an arthropod pheromone, lavandulyl senecioate is exempt from the requirement of a tolerance when used in retrievably sized polymeric matrix dispensers in or on all raw agricultural commodities when applied to growing crops only at a rate not to exceed 150 grams active ingredient/acre/year in accordance with good agricultural practices (40 CFR 180.1124). The petitioner is requesting to apply this arthropod pheromone in an aqueous suspension of micro-bead/dispensers via normal spray equipment; therefore, the proposed new use of lavandulyl senecioate is not covered under the existing tolerance exemption listed in 40 CFR 180.1124. See the document entitled, “Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) Considerations for Lavandulyl Senecioate” (June 30, 2015), available in the docket for this action.

All applicable mammalian toxicology data requirements supporting the petition to exempt residues of the arthropod pheromone, lavandulyl senecioate, from the requirement of a tolerance in or on all raw agricultural commodities when applied or used in microbeads/dispensers at a rate not to exceed 150 grams active ingredient/acre/year have been fulfilled. No significant toxicological effects were observed in any of the acute toxicity studies. Three mutagenicity studies submitted indicate that lavandulyl senecioate is not a mutagen. There are no known effects on endocrine systems via oral, dermal, or inhalation routes of exposure.

In the preamble to the final rule that exempted arthropod pheromones from the requirement of a tolerance when used in retrievably sized polymeric matrix dispensers, the Agency indicated that it did not have a toxicology database for arthropod pheromones that addressed the potential risk of repeated, direct dietary exposure with sprayable formulations; therefore, at that time, the Agency limited the tolerance exemption to arthropod pheromones used in retrievably sized polymeric matrix dispensers with an annual rate limitation of 150 grams of active ingredient per acre. The Agency concluded that the limitations would not result in dietary exposure any greater than what may be found naturally as a result of heavy infestations of the pest arthropod. March 30, 1994 (59 FR 14757) (FRL-4761-9).

To address the subchronic and prenatal developmental toxicity data requirements for this exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for this arthropod pheromone, lavandulyl senecioate, the petitioner submitted scientific rationales that demonstrate that it is highly unlikely that there will be significant repeated exposure, including dietary exposure and exposure to female humans, to this pheromone when used as proposed based on the extremely low application rate, low emission rate, rapid volatilization after emission from the microbeads, and rapid biodegradation. Taking into account the petitioner's rationale, EPA has concluded that there is unlikely to be exposure that could result in subchronic and developmental effects and so has waived the requirements for subchronic and prenatal developmental testing.

For a full discussion of the data and rationale upon which EPA relied, and its human health risk assessment based on that data and rationale, please refer to the document entitled, “Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) Considerations for Lavandulyl Senecioate” (June 30, 2015). This document, as well as other relevant information, is available in the docket for this action as described under ADDRESSES.

In examining aggregate exposure, FFDCA section 408 directs EPA to consider available information concerning exposures from the pesticide residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures, including drinking water from ground water or surface water and exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings (residential and other indoor uses).

In the preamble to the final rule, the Agency stated that limiting the exemption to applications of arthropod pheromones in retrievably sized dispensers would severely limit the possibility of direct dietary exposure. The Agency believed that restriction was necessary to protect public health due to a lack of data on repeat exposure but acknowledged that petitioners wanting to use other application methods or formulations could petition for an amendment by demonstrating that the new formulation did not increase the likely dietary exposure. For this tolerance exemption, based on the petitioner's submission concerning the proposed use, the Agency has determined that the proposed use (applying this arthropod pheromone in an aqueous suspension of microbead/dispensers via normal spray equipment with a limitation of 150 grams active ingredient/acre/year) will not result in detectable residues in or on all food commodities. That use is unlikely to result in significant dietary exposure to lavandulyl senecioate based on the extremely low application rate, low emission rate, rapid volatilization after emission from the microbeads, and rapid biodegradation (see document entitled, “Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) Considerations for Lavandulyl Senecioate” (June 30, 2015), available in the docket for this action). No significant exposure via drinking water is expected based on the previous information for dietary exposure and the fact that the arthropod pheromone is not to be applied directly to water. However, should any dietary and/or drinking water exposure occur, minimal to no risk is expected for the general population, including infants and children, due to the low toxicity of lavandulyl senecioate as demonstrated in the data submitted and evaluated by the Agency, as fully explained in the document entitled, “Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) Considerations for Lavandulyl Senecioate” (June 30, 2015), available in the docket for this action.

Other non-occupational exposure (other than dietary) is not expected because the arthropod pheromone, lavandulyl senecioate, is not approved for residential uses.

Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

EPA has not found lavandulyl senecioate to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and lavandulyl senecioate does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that lavandulyl senecioate does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) provides that, in considering the establishment of a tolerance or tolerance exemption for a pesticide chemical residue, EPA shall assess the available information about consumption patterns among infants and children, special susceptibility of infants and children to pesticide chemical residues, and the cumulative effects on infants and children of the residues and other substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. In addition, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure, unless EPA determines that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional or no safety factor when reliable data are available to support a different additional or no safety factor.

As part of its qualitative assessment, EPA evaluated the available toxicity and exposure data on lavandulyl senecioate and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability, as well as the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA considers the toxicity database to be complete and has identified no residual uncertainty with regard to prenatal and postnatal toxicity or exposure. No hazard was identified based on the available studies, as fully explained in the document entitled, “Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) Considerations for Lavandulyl Senecioate” (June 30, 2015), available in the docket for this action. Based upon its evaluation, EPA concludes that there are no threshold effects of concern to infants or children when lavandulyl senecioate is applied or used in microbeads/dispensers in or on all raw agricultural commodities at a rate not to exceed 150 grams active ingredient/acre/year. As a result, EPA concludes that no additional margin of exposure (safety) is necessary.

Based on the available data, EPA determines that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to lavandulyl senecioate to the general U.S. population, including infants and children when applied to growing crops using microbeads/dispensers at a rate not to exceed 150 grams active ingredient/acre/year. EPA concludes that an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of lavandulyl senecioate in or on raw agricultural commodities when applied to growing crops using microbeads/dispensers at a rate not to exceed 150 grams active ingredient/acre/year is safe.

An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.

Therefore, an exemption is established for residues of the arthropod pheromone, lavandulyl senecioate, in or on all raw agricultural commodities when applied or used in microbeads/dispensers at a rate not to exceed 150 grams active ingredient/acre/year.

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

The small-mesh multispecies fishery is managed primarily through a series of exemptions from the Northeast Multispecies Fisheries Management Plan. Regulations governing the red hake fishery are found at 50 CFR part 648. The regulations describing the process to adjust inseason commercial possession limits of northern red hake are described in § 648.86(d)(4) and (5). These regulations require the Regional Administrator to reduce the northern red hake possession limit from 3,000 lb (1,361 kg) to 1,500 lb (680 kg) when landings have been projected to reach or exceed 45 percent of the total allowable landings (TAL). The northern red hake possession limit is required to be further reduced to 400 lb (181 kg) if landings are projected to reach or exceed 62.5 percent of the TAL, unless such a reduction would be expected to prevent the TAL from being reached. The setting of these inseason adjustment thresholds were established in the final rule implementing the small-mesh multispecies specifications for 2015-2017, published in the Federal Register on May 28, 2015 (80 FR 30379).

These measures were imposed because the annual catch limits (ACL) for northern red hake were exceeded for the 2012 and 2013 fishing years, and northern red hake was experiencing overfishing. To reduce the risk of continued overfishing on the stock and to better constrain catch to the ACL, we implemented this possession limit reduction trigger.

Based on commercial landings data reported through July 30, 2015, the northern red hake fishery is projected to reach 45 percent of the TAL on August 10, 2015. Based on this projection, reducing the commercial northern red hake possession limit to 1,500 lb (680 kg) is required to prevent the TAL from being exceeded. Upon the effective date of this action, no person may possess on board or land more than 1,500 lb (680 kg) of northern red hake, per trip for the remainder of the fishing year.

This action is taken under 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.