Federal Register Vol. 80, No.180,

A. Background

The Agency for International Development issued an interim final rule with a request for comments adopting the Office of Management and Budget's “Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, and published in the Federal Register in Vol. 78, No. 248 (Dec. 26, 2013). This OMB rule is codified at 2 CFR part 200 and superseded OMB Circulars A-21, A-87, A-110, A-122, A-89, A-102, and A-133, and the guidance in Circular A-50 on Single Audit Act follow-up. USAID's interim final rule and subsequent final rule replace 22 CFR part 226, “Administration of Assistance Awards to U.S. Nongovernmental Organizations.” Parts of this final rule also apply to for-profit entities in limited circumstances and to foreign organizations as described in this guidance.

Regulatory Authority: The authority for Part 700 reads as follows:

The public comment period on the proposed rule closed on March 6, 2015. USAID received comments and suggestions from two organizations on its interim final rule. The following responses address comments that were specific to USAID's implementation of OMB's rule. Comments regarding OMB's Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements at 2 CFR part 200 that did not affect USAID's implementation at 2 CFR part 700 were not considered.

Comment: Two commenters addressed USAID's application of 2 CFR part 200 and 2 CFR part 700 to foreign organizations. Agencies were given decision making authority on the applicability of 2 CFR part 200 to non-US entities, which has resulted in a lack of consistency in applicability to non-US entities across the various federal agencies. Because the goal of this new regulation was to increase uniformity and reduce administrative burden, Subparts A through E of 2 CFR part 200 should be made applicable to all non-US entities, which will simplify and streamline sub-recipient monitoring, as well as implementation. The U.S. Agency for International Development has applied Subpart E inconsistently. Non-US entities will face different administrative requirements when they receive federal awards directly from these agencies. Pass-through entities that subaward funds to local indigenous organizations in host countries as well as to U.S. based entities must craft differing subaward agreements for each class of subrecipients and monitor and enforce differing requirements. Those non-US based subrecipients who receive funds that originate from USAID and from other federal agencies are subject to policies that are not uniform. We encourage USAID to use references to 2 CFR part 200, subpart D in its policies affecting non-US entities and to use the provisions of 2 CFR 200.207 to differentiate on an individual basis whether differing special conditions are warranted rather than continue to differentiate as they have done.

Response: USAID has modified 2 CFR part 700 to clearly identify what parts of 2 CFR part 200 apply to different entities. USAID will continue its longstanding practice of not applying the uniform set of administrative requirements consolidated in the new Uniform Requirements to foreign organizations. The Uniform Requirements would have significant negative implications for USAID's ongoing operations and awards involving foreign organizations. Taken as a whole, adoption by USAID of the Uniform Requirements to foreign organizations would impose U.S. requirements on local organizations working in English as a second language and unfamiliar with the technical wording and systems logic of federal regulations primarily directed at U.S. recipients, including U.S. and international non-governmental organizations, universities, and research organizations. Application of these requirements would result in an across-the-board increase of administrative burden on local organizations and would seriously undermine USAID's development and sustainability goals that have been the subject of significant efforts to reduce such burdens and barriers to local organization partnerships with USAID.

More broadly, these changes would have a significant impact on the Agency's ongoing efforts to work directly with capable local organizations to fulfill our overall mandate to support sustainable development.

Comment: Two commenters addressed the application of cost principles to for-profit entities. Section 2 CFR 200.101 indicates that Federal agencies may apply the Cost Principles, found in Subpart E, to commercial entities. OMB's decision to permit Federal awarding agencies to decide whether to apply the provisions of the Uniform Guidance to commercial organizations and its discussion of the applicability of Subpart E of 2 CFR part 200 has created confusion as to the continuing role that the cost principles for commercial organizations contained in 48 CFR Subpart 31.2 have when the Federal award is made to a commercial organization.

In particular, the statement in 2 CFR 200.101(a) (i.e., “These requirements are applicable to all costs related to Federal awards.”), the chart that follows in 2 CFR 200.101(b), and particularly the statement contained in 2 CFR 200.101(c) lead to the conclusion that OMB's intent is for commercial organizations to follow Subpart E when administering grants and cooperative agreements. However, Subpart E only applies to non-commercial entities, while 48 CFR Subpart 31.2 applies to commercial entities. It is clear that when those organizations are administering a Federal contract, they would be directed to follow 48 CFR Subpart 31.2, leading to potential inconsistency of costing. The Department of State has addressed this subject by promulgating 2 CFR 600.101(b) to assure cost consistency shows that this clarification should be made on a government-wide basis.

Response: USAID has revised 2 CFR part 700 to clarify that Subpart E does not apply to for-profit entities.

For the regulatory findings regarding this rulemaking, please refer to the analysis prepared by OIRA in the interim final rule, which is incorporated herein. 79 FR at 75876.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, The Agency for International Development amends 2 CFR Chapter VII by revising part 700 to read as follows:

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on December 2, 2014 to amend title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations parts 890 and 892 to include a self plus one enrollment type to comply with the 2013 Bipartisan Budget Act. During the comment period on the proposed rule, OPM received 64 comments including 5 from Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program carriers, 2 from employee organizations or unions, 1 from a carrier organization, and 56 from individuals, many of them enrollees in the FEHB Program. These comments are addressed below.

OPM received a variety of comments, mostly from FEHB enrollees, expressing excitement about the self plus one enrollment type. Commenters indicated that the enrollment type will benefit them personally and financially.

One commenter requested justification for the implementation of the self plus one enrollment type and expressed concern over the level of complexity that this additional statutorily required enrollment type introduces to consumer choice in the FEHB Program. The commenter noted that under the current two-tier system, “the typical enrollee . . . has a choice of about 20 plan options” and projected that options available for families may double and premiums might vary greatly.

OPM is updating 5 CFR parts 890 and 892 to comply with provisions of the 2013 Bipartisan Budget Act. This more closely aligns insurance offerings for Federal employees with those available in the commercial market and to more equitably spread costs among the enrollment types offered.

OPM is aware that creation of a new enrollment tier may create additional complexity. However, this complexity is limited because the rule only introduces a new enrollment type. Benefits design will not differ from other enrollment types offered within the same plan option, which minimizes the complexity introduced by the rule. To alleviate potential concerns about complexity during the introductory year, § 892.207(d) has been amended in this final rule to include a one-time limited enrollment period to be held in early 2016. Final dates for the Limited Enrollment Period will be announced by OPM following the publication of this rule. During this period, enrollees will be allowed to decrease enrollment from self and family to self plus one. Enrollment changes made in conjunction with the limited enrollment period will be effective on the first day of the first pay period following the one in which the appropriate request is received by the employing office. Because enrollees who do not participate in premium conversion (pre-tax deduction of premiums), including annuitants, may decrease their enrollment at any time, this limited enrollment period is intended only for premium conversion participants. No new enrollments, changes in plan or plan option, or increases in enrollment will be allowed in conjunction with the limited enrollment period.

In advance of Open Season each year, OPM, agencies and carriers inform employees and annuitants of their enrollment options and provide them with decision-making tools. Given the addition of the self plus one enrollment type, this communications strategy will be augmented for the 2015 Open Season. OPM communications will encourage enrollees to carefully review the options available to them for plan year 2016.

An FEHB carrier requested clarification that “enrollees will need to make a positive election through their agency or retirement office in order to switch from self only or self and family to self plus one.” This statement is correct. Just as is the case under the current two-tier system, enrollees must inform their agency, either through an electronic or paper copy of the Standard Form 2809, when they increase or decrease coverage. Agencies are responsible for submitting this information to carriers. This requirement will be no different for self plus one.

Several commenters requested additional information about the timing of the implementation of the self plus one enrollment type. Others requested that OPM delay implementation by at least one year in order to conduct additional analysis. Another questioned the decision to implement the new self plus one enrollment option for plan year 2016, as this date was not required by law.

The effective date in this final rule has not been altered. The Bipartisan Budget Act was passed in 2013 and OPM has been working diligently to implement this statutory mandate within a reasonable timeframe. Enrollees who have been looking forward to this change will now be able to select a self plus one enrollment type during the 2015 Open Season for effective dates in January of 2016.

OPM received three comments about family member eligibility. Two commenters asked about the eligibility of domestic partners and cohabitating (unmarried) opposite sex couples. A third comment asked if a sibling could be covered.

Family member eligibility is defined in title 5 U.S. Code section 8901 and includes spouses and children up to age 26. As stated in the supplementary information of the proposed rule, family member eligibility guidelines remain the same as in place under the two tier system. Domestic partners, cohabitating (unmarried) couples, and siblings are not considered eligible family members under the law at this time.

The proposed rule outlined the circumstances in which an enrollee with a self plus one enrollment would be allowed to switch their covered family member. Some commenters expressed concerns that these provisions might lead to adverse selection. OPM believes that adequate protection against adverse selection is provided in the manner in which Qualifying Life Events (QLEs) allowing such a change have been limited. Further, the general rule applies that the change must be consistent with the QLE experienced. The following chart, which was published with the proposed rule, clarifies which QLE codes will allow an enrollee to switch a covered family member outside of Open Season (definitions for each of the event codes can be found on the SF2809 at http://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf2809.pdf):

One carrier organization requested that OPM require a 30 day advance notice to carriers before allowing a switch in covered family member in order to prevent overpayments as well as verification of alternative health insurance for the family member being removed. OPM declines to make this change. It is expected that carriers will utilize current standard operating procedures to process the switching of a covered family member; generally changes are effective at the beginning of the next pay period after receipt by the agency.

A commenter urged OPM to treat the switch as a cancellation for the family member who is being removed from the self plus one enrollment, thereby rendering the individual ineligible for the 31 day extension of coverage. Just as is the case under the two tier system, under § 890.401(a)(1) eligibility for the 31 day extension of coverage is provided for covered family members whose coverage is terminated other than by cancellation of the enrollment or discontinuance of the plan, in whole or in part. For family members, terminations are typically based on a loss of eligibility such as, in the case of a child, turning age 26; or, in the case of a spouse, a divorce. Cancellation is typically a voluntary election to no longer be covered under an FEHB plan, for example when a family member becomes eligible for other group coverage. Switching a covered family member may occur as the result of either a termination or a cancellation. Therefore, OPM declines to make this change.

One commenter urged OPM to apply a blanket policy against discretionary retroactive switching of a covered family member. Section 892.207(b) has been updated in the final rule to include switching a covered family member in order to accommodate this suggestion. Enrollment changes made under § 892.207 are, in general, effective on the first day of the first pay period following the one in which the appropriate request is received by the employing office. In addition, paragraph (f)(2) has been added to § 890.302 in the final rule to specify that the effective date for switching a covered family member will be prospective. A definition of the term “switching a covered family member” has also been added to § 890.101.

One commenter requested that OPM clarify that “enrollees cannot switch the covered family member under the self plus one without a QLE to validate dependent eligibility.” As described in the proposed rule, and supported in the final rule, enrollees must experience a QLE in order to switch their covered family member.

One commenter requested additional information about how carriers will be notified of the designated covered family member under the self plus one enrollment. The Standard Form 2809 and electronic enrollment transmissions will be utilized just as they are currently to communicate enrollment information. Additionally, OPM is assessing other methods, including updating enrollment systems government-wide to allow for the transmittal of changes in the designated family member from agencies to carriers.

One commenter asked that OPM require the capture of a Social Security Number for dependents. As this is outside the scope of this rule, we decline to comment at this time.

One commenter requested that OPM clarify whether or not enrollees must experience a QLE in order to decrease enrollment outside of Open Season. Under § 892.208, enrollees who participate in premium conversion must experience a QLE in order to decrease enrollment outside of Open Season. Under § 890.301(e), enrollees who do not participate in premium conversion may decrease enrollment at any time. This final rule has not altered these requirements.

Another commenter requested that OPM clarify that “retired federal employees/annuitants will have the option to change plans and/or enrollment types upon retirement, regardless of Medicare eligibility or age at the time of retirement.”

Retirement is not a QLE and therefore no changes may be made based solely on retirement. Retirement is a change from one payroll office to another. After an individual is retired, under the provisions in § 890.301(e), they may decrease enrollment or cancel coverage at any time. QLEs are still required for increasing coverage or changing plans outside of Open Season.

It was requested that OPM clarify the process for handling an annuitant who, upon experiencing the death of her spouse, forgets to decrease her enrollment to self only. As this question is beyond the scope of this regulation, OPM declines to comment at this time.

Additional guidance was requested regarding carrier responsibilities to notify enrollees and agencies when a family member has aged out of eligibility or passed away. OPM encourages carriers to contact their enrollees when a child ages out or if they learn of the death of a covered family member in order to inform the enrollee of their QLE opportunity at that time.

Four commenters suggested alternative enrollment types. One commenter suggested that OPM provide rates based on the number of family members enrolled. Another suggested an enrollment type available to only those enrolled in both FEHB and Medicare. A third commenter suggested that, instead of self plus one, OPM alter eligibility guidelines to allow spouses and dependents to enroll in their own right in self only enrollments. Finally, an FEHB carrier commented that OPM should implement a four-tier system: Self only, employee and spouse, employee and one non-spousal family member, and self and family. Commenters urged OPM to consider methods for encouraging or requiring Medicare enrollment. One suggested that OPM should consider reducing premiums for annuitants enrolled in Medicare as FEHB is the secondary payer. Another expressed concerns that the addition of the self plus one enrollment type would exacerbate an existing problem in which younger enrollees subsidize higher cost annuitants.

OPM is unable to implement these suggested changes. The FEHB statute only allows the following enrollment types: Self only, self plus one, and self and family. Any other enrollment types, including separate enrollment tiers for individuals enrolled in Medicare, would require legislative change.

OPM received four comments indicating that the definition of self plus one in the proposed rule, which does not preclude an individual with only one eligible family member from enrolling in self and family, has potentially negative consequences. These commenters indicated the definition, coupled with concerns that self plus one premiums and/or enrollee shares may rise above self and family premiums and/or enrollee shares, could result in revenue shortfall for carriers. They predicted that some consumers with only one eligible family member will likely select a self and family enrollment if the enrollee share is lower, leading to a financial loss for plans with higher claims costs for self plus one enrollments.

Individual choice is, and always has been, one of the hallmarks of the FEHB Program. Before the addition of the self plus one enrollment type, individuals have been free to select a self only or self and family enrollment, regardless of whether or not they have eligible family members. In that tradition, the final rule adopts the proposed rule's provision, providing individuals the freedom to select among all three enrollment types available, regardless of the number of their eligible family members.

One commenter requested that OPM use this opportunity to expressly state that all eligible family members are covered under a self and family enrollment. Current regulatory language, which has not been altered in this rule, already adequately expresses this. Section 890.302(a)(1) states that an enrollment for self and family includes all family member who are eligible to be covered by the enrollment. Further, the definition of self and family, as added by this final rule states that self and family enrollment means an enrollment that covers the enrollee and all eligible family members.

The government contribution to premium is calculated based on weighted average of the subscription charges described in 5 U.S. Code section 8906. One commenter points out that most carriers are unable to predict the government contribution for their plans because they do not cover an adequate portion of the total market to estimate actual FEHB enrollment to determine the weighted average. Thus, many plans propose total premiums to OPM without a complete understanding of what the government and enrollee contributions will be, putting them at a disadvantage in a competitive market. Given the additional uncertainty for plan year 2016, with the addition of the self plus one enrollment type, the commenter requested that OPM provide carriers more flexibility to adjust final premium rates during the negotiation process after the government contribution has been calculated. OPM will adhere to standard operating procedures for plan year 2016 final rate negotiations.

An FEHB carrier requested that OPM provide additional information to carriers concerning rate setting for plan year 2016. In addition, they cautioned OPM against applying the same government contribution for both self plus one and self and family enrollments for plan year 2016 as this method might lead to increased “unpredictability of which subscribers will choose which tier.” Many commenters requested additional information about the weighted averages that would be used to determine the government contribution for plan year 2016.

The 2013 Bipartisan Budget Act provides OPM with flexibility in the first year that self plus one is offered to “determine the weighted average of the subscription charges that will be in effect for the contract year for enrollments for self plus one under such chapter based on an actuarial analysis.” 1 The weighted average is used to calculate the Government contribution, according to a formula set in statute (5 U.S.C. 8906). OPM takes a count of enrollments with Government contributions in March of each year (referred to in the following paragraphs as the “March enrollment count”). This March enrollment count is used to determine the maximum Government contribution for the following plan year. For each enrollment type, OPM sums the product of the new premium and the March enrollment count for each option and divides the sum by the total number of individuals enrolled in that enrollment type.

Because we do not have self plus one data from our March 2015 enrollment count, OPM has determined that it will use the 2015 self and family March enrollment count to calculate the weighted average for both the 2016 self plus one and self and family enrollment types. The weighted average for self plus one will be based on the 2016 self plus one premiums and the 2015 self and family March enrollment count. OPM provides rate-setting guidance to carriers on an annual basis. For the 2016 plan year, OPM requested that carriers propose self plus one premiums that are no greater than self and family premiums.2 Although OPM does not expect this policy to change in the out years, the right to reevaluate is reserved.

Comments were received that indicated the addition of the self plus one enrollment type would translate into cost savings for enrollees with only one eligible family member. Commenters in this category praised OPM for implementing the new enrollment type. Other commenters expressed concerns about rate setting for the new self plus one enrollment type. In particular, a concern that self and family premiums would rise drastically in plan year 2016 in order to accommodate the new self plus one enrollment type. It was suggested that OPM impose a 10% cap on such growth in the final rule, especially for the first year of implementation. Others expressed concerns about the differential between the three enrollment tiers. OPM was asked to clarify whether or not the enrollee share of a self plus one enrollment would be less than or exactly equal to two self only enrollments. One carrier projected that, although self plus one premiums might not rise above self and family premiums, the differential between the two would be negligible, calling into question the cost-benefit of such a change given the high administrative burden of implementation.

Other commenters expressed concerns about actual claims costs. One highlighted the unique nature of the FEHB risk pool because the annuitant population is combined with the active employee population, indicating that many annuitants, who traditionally have higher claims costs, have only one eligible family member and therefore might make up the bulk of self plus one enrollees. Two commenters pointed out that HMO plans might be especially impacted. They expressed concerns that, if OPM were to require that self plus one total premiums remain below self and family total premiums, the end result would be an even more dramatic increase for self and family enrollees. The commenter projected that this change would render some regional HMOs non-competitive, forcing them out of the FEHB market.

The final rule does not set differentials between tiers, nor does it impose caps on premium growth. Under the three tier system, carriers will set rate differentials between tiers that are appropriate for the expected population, just as they do under the two tier system. An artificial cap is unwarranted because plans must set rates that reflect the costs of the population they will be covering. Further, enrollees have free choice to stay in their current plan or shop for a less expensive plan or option that meets their needs. Because the FEHB Program is market-based, artificial caps on premium are likely to cause adverse consequences such as inadequate rates for some products.

One commenter requested that rate information be provided earlier than normally scheduled to provide individuals adequate time to analyze their options. Given the rate negotiation process outlined in § 890.501, OPM cannot set the government contribution before September 1st for the following plan year.

Commenters who discussed OPM's Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) in the proposed rule asked that OPM provide a more robust analysis for public comment. Four commenters suggested that the RIA provided in the proposed rule was insufficient under requirements outlined in the Administrative Procedures Act, Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the Congressional Review Act. They suggested a delay in implementation in order to conduct additional analysis, provide details to the public, and allow for an additional comment period. One commenter stated OPM had failed to properly justify the change and to explain the potential impacts on the FEHB Program. Multiple commenters disagreed with OPM's assertion that self plus one premiums would likely be lower than self and family. One commenter noted that the RIA failed to discuss the possibility of rate differentials between the enrollment types. The commenter suggested that all carriers should be required to maintain the same differentials between their plan tiers. The commenter requested an actuarial analysis of the method that will be utilized to determine the weighted average of all FEHB plans for plan year 2015.

OPM believes the analysis provided in the proposed rule fulfills legal requirements. As noted in the proposed and reiterated in the final rule, this change is being implemented to comply with the 2013 Bipartisan Budget Act. In addition, this change aligns insurance offerings with those available in the commercial market and more equitably spreads costs among the enrollment types offered.

Four commenters requested that we clarify information for carriers. One commenter asked OPM to release details, including the final rule, by March 31, 2015 to allow carriers ample time to prepare. Another commenter asked for additional details on enrollment and eligibility under the new self plus one enrollment type; however, provided no specific questions.

One commenter asked that OPM clarify benefits structures including deductibles and out of pocket maximums. OPM addressed these issues through normal carrier communications including the annual call letter, carrier letters, and teleconferences. OPM utilizes several methods for communicating with carriers including, but not limited to carrier letters, brochure tools, and teleconferences. Some of the information requested during the public comment period either has already been released or is forthcoming via these alternative communication methods.

OPM received three comments relative to the systems updates required to implement the new self plus one enrollment type. One commenter also asked that the brochure template language be available early. Two commenters suggested that OPM improve processes by which dependent information is communicated to carriers. An employee organization noted that the number of enrollment changes in Open Season 2015 is likely to far exceed the average Open Season and expressed concerns that the overall system would not be able to handle this increased number of enrollment changes.

OPM has carefully and deliberately been reviewing, modifying, and testing internal systems to ensure that enrollee information is accurately collected and disseminated to carriers. In addition, numerous communications have been distributed on the required systems changes with agencies, carriers, and enrollment systems. We are confident that, through all of these efforts, all necessary systems updates will be completed in time for a smooth implementation of the self plus one enrollment type in plan year 2016.

OPM has reviewed this final rule for PRA implications and has determined that it does not apply to this section.

Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public, health, and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). A regulatory impact analysis must be prepared for major rules that may have economically significant effects (i.e., effects of $100 million or more in at least one year). Given that there are approximately 8.2 million members participating in the FEHB Program, including approximately one million two-person self and family enrollments, and participation involves hundreds of dollars per member per month, we cannot rule out the possibility that this final rule's changes to the FEHB Program will have effects that meet the threshold for economic significance. We do expect the overall federal budget impact of this final rule to be net neutral, though this is subject to uncertainty.

The new enrollment tier will align FEHB Program offerings with the commercial market and serve to more equitably spread costs across different enrollment types; in other words, it will shift costs among program participants. For plan year 2016, OPM has required that that the self plus one enrollment type have total premiums no greater than self and family total premiums.

In plan year 2015 there were over 4 million FEHB contracts. This includes 1.89 million self only contracts (47%) and 2.13 million self and family contracts (53%).

During a typical year, approximately 6% of FEHB enrollees change their enrollment by selecting a new plan option or a new enrollment type (approximately 8% of active employees and 4% of annuitants). However, as this is the first time the FEHB Program has experienced a large-scale programmatic change as the addition of a new enrollment type, it is expected that movement will be greater in the coming years as enrollees learn more about their options.

In order to estimate the impact of the addition of the self plus one enrollment type, OPM has conducted an analysis to predict the potential shift in enrollment that may occur.

OPM determined that the following movement patterns were possible:

• FEHB eligible individuals who are currently not enrolled may choose to enroll in FEHB after self plus one becomes available.

• Current self only enrollees may choose to increase enrollment to include coverage for an eligible family member who is not currently covered under an FEHB enrollment.

• Current self only enrollees may choose to cancel coverage in order to be covered under a spouse or parent's self plus one FEHB enrollment.

• Current self and family enrollees with only one eligible family member may choose to decrease to a self plus one enrollment.

• Current self and family enrollees with two or more eligible family members may choose to decrease to a self plus one enrollment to cover only one of their eligible family members.

• Some FEHB enrollees in either self only or self and family may choose to cancel their enrollments.

• Enrollees in either self only or self and family may choose to remain in their current enrollment type.

Based on available data and experience, OPM estimates that much of the movement that will occur will result in a shift from one enrollment type to another. There are a limited number of circumstances where the addition of the self plus one enrollment type may result in new FEHB enrollees or in enrollees leaving the program. It is difficult to estimate how many individuals may newly enroll in the program. Most employees who do not participate in the FEHB Program do so because they have access to other insurance options. This rule will not alter access to other insurance for FEHB eligible employees. Also, because OPM does not have government-wide eligible and covered family member data, it is not known exactly how many individuals are covered under self and family enrollments, nor is it known how many eligible family members exist but are not currently covered because the enrollee has chosen a self only enrollment.

In order to learn more about potential movement between enrollment types, OPM requested data on covered enrollees and family members from carriers with the 2014 rate proposals. Carriers reported that over one million self and family contracts had only one dependent listed. Of those enrollments, approximately 60% were annuitants and 40% were active employees. While this number does not capture the universe of enrollees who may choose a self plus one enrollment, it does provide a starting place for estimating the potential movement between tiers.

OPM also examined enrollment data for the Federal Employees Dental and Vision Insurance Program (FEDVIP). FEDVIP has offered self plus one as an enrollment option since its inception in 2007. There are currently approximately 2.7 million FEDVIP contracts. Of those, 41% are self only, 32% are self plus one, and 27% are self and family.

Comparing FEHB and FEDVIP enrollment patterns may be illustrative because the pool of eligible individuals is roughly the same. Most FEDVIP enrollees are also eligible for FEHB. However, there are some key differences between the programs. First, family member eligibility guidelines are slightly different. Eligible children are covered under FEDVIP enrollments until the age of 22 whereas eligible children are covered under FEHB until the age of 26. Second, FEDVIP has lower participation as it is an employee-pay-all program with no government contribution towards the premium. In addition, benefits offered in standalone dental and vision programs are limited, and therefore, enrollee behavior and motivation based on those benefits would be different.

Examining the types of movement that are possible and comparing FEHB enrollment trends with other programs provides only a limited view of the complex factors that affect enrollment decisions for enrollees. Enrollee choice and movement is an individualized decision based on the needs of the enrollee and their dependents. Self plus one uptake is dependent on a combination of factors including premiums, benefits structures, and the level of communication from agencies, carriers, and OPM about new enrollment options.

For most enrollees, the enrollee share for self plus one will be lower than for self and family; however, it is possible that, because of the statutory formula used to calculate the government contribution, some plans may have a higher enrollee share for self plus one than for self and family. This will make it even more important for enrollees to review their enrollment options before selecting a plan and an enrollment type that meets their needs. OPM is implementing a robust communications strategy to ensure that as many enrollees as possible are aware of the new self plus one enrollment type.

Plan design remains the same between enrollment types offered in the same plan option. Therefore, OPM expects that cognitive costs for enrollees would be relatively low. For those enrollees that do not typically reevaluate their enrollment every Open Season, the cognitive costs of a review of the plans, plan options, and enrollment types available may well be worth incurring, as they may discover better alternatives (though these improvements may represent transfers from other members of society, rather than benefits to society as whole). Ultimately, actual enrollment decisions cannot be predicted with precision. Further, it will likely take years for enrollment numbers to reach an equilibrium following this Program change.3

OPM's Fiscal Year 2014 Congressional Budget Justification 4 included a projection that the addition of the self plus one enrollment would have a net neutral impact on the Federal budget. This projection, based on FEHB carriers' relative costs and population distributions, included the following assumptions:

• The average premium for self plus one coverage will be approximately 94% of the cost of existing self and family coverage.

• The average premium for self and family coverage will be approximately 107% of the cost of existing self and family coverage.

• 33% of active employees with existing self and family will shift to self plus one coverage.

• Only 20% of annuitants with existing self and family coverage will retain that coverage (80% will shift to self plus one).

As discussed above, there are several ways in which enrollees may choose to change their enrollment based on the addition of the self plus one enrollment type. The magnitudes of these changes (and the effects experienced by the government that depend on FEHB participants' behavior) would be correlated with the amount that participant premium contributions change. If, as shown above, self plus one premiums are only slightly lower than baseline self and family premiums, then two-person families will have little incentive to transfer family members from other coverage to FEHB. Similarly, if self and family premiums increase only slightly as a result of this rule, then families larger than two people will have little incentive to switch some or all of their members from FEHB to other health insurance coverage. As a result, in this example, a change in the cost of the Program would be contingent, in part, upon the amount of switching into or out of FEHB from/to other health insurance.

Current enrollees with self and family coverage who only have one dependent and choose to decrease enrollment to self plus one, will likely benefit from lower premiums. Those with more than one dependent covered under a self and family enrollment will likely incur higher premiums. A large percentage of annuitants who currently have self and family coverage would likely benefit from the lower total premiums of a self plus one enrollment type, resulting in score-able savings to the government because the government share of annuitant premiums will decrease.

OPM estimated that, in total, savings for annuitants and the government would rise above $450 million in the first year of self plus one. Conversely, costs for non-Postal employees and the government would rise about $450 million for the same time frame. This converse relationship between costs associated with annuitants and employees continues into future year projections and results in the overall net-neutral projection.

Actual cost shifting cannot be measured until rate negotiations are finalized and enrollment changes take place. As enrollees shift from self only and self and family enrollments, OPM will closely monitor the effect on premiums. If premiums for active employees with two or more covered family members rise, there will be increasing costs to government agencies (assuming appropriation of necessary funds).5

The impact of this final rule hinges upon the relative premiums for self plus one and self and family enrollment types. Because the self and family option includes coverage for a larger number of people, a natural assumption would be that premiums would be lower for a self plus one enrollment type than for a self and family enrollment type. For plan year 2016, OPM instructed carriers to propose total premiums for self plus one that were less than or equal to total premiums for self and family. In that case, several rule-induced outcomes are likely:

• Federal employees and annuitants who, in the absence of the rule, would choose self and family enrollment for themselves and either a spouse or a child would switch to a self plus one enrollment, resulting in lower total premium payments between employees, annuitants and the federal government.

• Federal employees and annuitants choosing self and family enrollment for themselves and at least two family members would experience an increase in premiums and therefore, in some cases, may choose to switch from FEHB to an alternative health insurance option. If all such families continued with FEHB participation, the government would experience an increase in premium payments that would (in theory) exactly offset the decreases associated with two-person families switching from self and family to self plus one enrollment; however, any switching away from FEHB would mitigate the premium increases experienced by the federal government, instead potentially leading to payment increases by any contributors to the newly-chosen insurance options (an obvious example would be the employer of a federal employee's or annuitant's spouse if that employer sponsors the newly-chosen insurance).

• Federal employees and annuitants who, in the absence of the rule, would choose self only enrollment in spite of having a spouse who would be eligible for coverage under self and family enrollment may choose self plus one enrollment. This might occur if a self and family premium is greater than the combined premiums for a federal employee's self only enrollment and a spouse's self only enrollment in health insurance through his or her own non-federal employer, but the relevant FEHB self plus one premium is less than the combined premiums.6 In this type of scenario in which the federal employee's or annuitant's enrollment increases, the federal government would pay more in premiums (relative to a baseline in which this rule is not finalized) but the federal employee's or annuitant's family would pay less. Any contributors to the insurance in which the family member would be enrolled in the absence of the rule—such as the non-federal employer of the federal employee's spouse in the preceding example—would also pay less.

To the extent that new patterns of enrollment do not change how society uses its resources (i.e., amount or quality of medical services provided), then the effects described above would be transfers between members of society, rather than social costs or benefits.

It is possible that two-person families are, on average, less healthy than larger families; indeed, multiple comments to the docket provided evidence that some plans' expenditures for two-person enrollments are higher than for enrollments with three or more total family members. For the 2016 plan year, because OPM has requested that carriers propose self plus one premiums no greater than self and family premiums, plans with this medical expenditure pattern will presumably set equal premiums for self plus one and self and family enrollment types. In the event that OPM does not repeat this request for future years, plans with higher average expenditures for two-person than for larger families will presumably set premiums higher for self plus one enrollment than for self and family enrollment. If this pattern—in which self plus one premiums are greater than or equal to self and family premiums—held universally, the lack of premium decrease to give federal employees and annuitants an incentive to switch from self and family to self plus one enrollment would lead to the rule's enrollment impact being negligible.7 However, as indicated by docket submissions, relative expenditures on (and thus premiums for) two-person and larger enrollments differ across plans, and hence the effect of adding the self plus one option may be to increase switching between plans, as federal employees and annuitants with one eligible family member gravitate toward plans with relatively low self plus one premiums and federal employees and annuitants with multiple eligible family members gravitate toward plans with relatively low self and family premiums. Plan switching of this type would lead to further changes in premiums and several iterations of switching activity and premium adjustments may occur.

Additionally, the rule imposes implementation costs, such as the costs of systems updates, on FEHB-participating health insurance plans, federal agencies, and on OPM itself. These expenses are encompassed in existing workloads. OPM has no specific estimate for these costs, but expects them to be marginal.

Though regulatory alternatives to this rule are limited due to the statutory mandate, OPM did consider delaying implementation of the rule until the 2017 plan year. OPM rejected this option for two reasons. First, delaying implementation will not provide additional information. Because OPM contracts with a number of carriers, proposed rates are proprietary and cannot be released publically without compromising confidential negotiation processes. Until first year negotiations are completed and enrollment changes occur, OPM would not have a precise understanding of the impact of the self plus one enrollment type on premiums.

Second, implementation has already been delayed. After the passage of the 2013 Bipartisan Budget Act, the first year that implementation would have been possible was plan year 2015. OPM determined that this was not adequate time to implement the new enrollment type and chose to delay implementation until 2016. OPM, carriers, and Federal agencies are well into the implementation process. Rate negotiations between OPM and FEHB carriers have begun under the assumption that the 2016 plan year would include the self plus one enrollment type. Agencies and carriers are currently implementing the systems changes required to accommodate three tier enrollments. Delaying implementation would adversely impact the Federal benefits Open Season which is scheduled to begin in early November of this year.

OPM has determined that this regulatory action is not subject to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801-08, because it relates to agency management and personnel. The program is not statutorily for general application but rather governs employment fringe benefits for Federal employees, annuitants and their families. Moreover, OPM has been statutorily granted discretion in terms of deciding how its actions may affect non-agency parties, such as carriers, by its authority to regulate enrollment. See, 5 U.S.C. 8905(a), 8905(g)(2), and 8913(b).

I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the regulation only adds a self plus one enrollment tier to the current self only and self and family enrollment tiers under FEHB.

This rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with Executive Orders 13563 and 12866.

We have examined this rule in accordance with Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that this rule will not have any negative impact on the rights, roles and responsibilities of State, local, or tribal governments.

Accordingly, OPM is amending title 5, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

Background

Under the regulations in “Subpart-Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-73, referred to below as the regulations), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture prohibits or restricts the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent plant pests from being introduced into and spread within the United States.

On October 16, 2014, we published in the Federal Register (79 FR 62055-62058, Docket No. APHIS-2014-0002) a proposal 1 to amend the regulations by listing kiwi (Actinidia deliciosa and Actinidia chinensis) from Chile as eligible for importation into the United States under the same systems approach as baby kiwi from Chile, which are eligible for importation under the conditions in § 319.56-53. We also prepared a commodity import evaluation document (CIED) titled “Importation of Fresh Fruits of Kiwi (Actinidia deliciosa and Actinidia chinensis) from Chile into the United States.” The CIED assesses the risks associated with the importation of kiwi from Chile into the United States under the listed phytosanitary measures.

We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending December 15, 2014. We received seven comments by that date. They were from private citizens, a fruit exporter, an industry group, and representatives of State and foreign governments. Four of the comments were supportive. Three commenters expressed concerns regarding aspects of the proposed rule. Those concerns are discussed below.

In the proposed rule, we proposed that a random sample of kiwi would have to be washed using a flushing method, placed in a 20-mesh sieve on top of a 200-mesh sieve, sprinkled with a liquid soap and water solution, washed with water at high pressure, and washed with water at low pressure. The washing process would then have to be repeated immediately after the first washing. The contents of the 200-mesh sieve would then be placed on a petri dish and analyzed for the presence of live Brevipalpus chilensis mites. This mite sampling method is identical to the method currently in use for baby kiwi production areas in Chile and has been found to be successful in identifying production areas within Chile with high and low populations of mites.

One commenter stated that the washing process should be expanded to include all fruit in a shipment.

The washing process is used as a way to sample for the presence of B. chilensis in order to confirm the low prevalence of B. chilensis in certified production areas within Chile. It is not intended as a phytosanitary measure.

Two commenters recommended that 270 mesh be used in place of 200 mesh for sampling at the port of entry because they stated that 200 mesh may not be fine enough to detect immature stages of B. chilensis.

Fruit has been imported from Chile since 1997 using a systems approach based on sampling for mites using a 200 mesh screen. Any eggs or nymphs found using a finer mesh sieve cannot be identified to species. This systems approach is based on low prevalence for adult mites, not pest freedom. If even one adult B. chilensis mite is found in a shipment, it is enough to disqualify a place of production from the export program. APHIS has successfully used this approach for 18 years for determining areas of low prevalence for a number of Chilean fruits.

Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, without change.

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the potential economic effects of this action on small entities. Production, consumption, and trade of kiwi by the United States have been expanding and are expected to continue to increase, as shown in table 1. Over the 5 years from 2008 through 2012, U.S. kiwi production and imports expanded by about 29 percent and 24 percent, respectively, and U.S. exports by 48 percent. U.S. consumption of kiwi grew by about 23 percent over this same period.

The United States is dependent on imports for the major share of its kiwi supply. In 2012, nearly four of every five kiwis consumed were imported. Chile is the principal foreign source, supplying one-half of the kiwis imported by the United States in 2012, up from approximately one-third of U.S. kiwi imports in 2008. Chile is expected to continue to dominate the supply of kiwi to the United States in the near term. Under this rule, Chile's kiwi exporters will have the option of using the systems approach rather than relying on fumigation with methyl bromide to meet import requirements.

Although the United States is a net importer of kiwi, the percentage increase in U.S. kiwi exports between 2008 and 2012 was twice the percentage increase in U.S. kiwi imports; U.S. producers are actively expanding their sales to other countries. We also note that kiwi imports from Chile are largely counter-seasonal to kiwi sales by domestic producers. California produces 98 percent the kiwis grown in the United States, and the California season runs October through May.2 Kiwi from Chile is predominantly imported during the spring and summer months. Ninety-four percent of Chilean kiwi imported in 2012 arrived between April and September.3

Although kiwi production in the United States is expanding, it remains a relatively small agricultural industry, with fewer than 300 growers whose farms average about 13 acres. Nevertheless, it is a vibrant industry with an expanding export market. This fact, together with the counter-seasonality of kiwi imports from Chile, suggests that the economic impact of the rule for U.S. small entities will be minor.

Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This final rule allows kiwi to be imported into the United States from Chile. State and local laws and regulations regarding kiwi imported under this rule will be preempted while the fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh fruits are generally imported for immediate distribution and sale to the consuming public, and remain in foreign commerce until sold to the ultimate consumer. The question of when foreign commerce ceases in other cases must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. No retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and this rule will not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

This final rule contains no new information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR part 319 as follows:

History

The FAA published a final rule, in the Federal Register, amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Tracy Municipal Airport, Tracy, CA (80 FR 52392 August 31, 2015). Subsequent to publication the FAA identified an error in the longitudinal coordinate of the airport reference point for Tracy Municipal Airport. This action corrects the error.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, in the Federal Register of August 31, 2015 (80 FR 52392) FR Doc. 2015-21414, the longitude coordinate in the regulatory text on page 52393, column 2, line 10, is corrected as follows:

History

On June 30, 2015, the FAA published in the Federal Register (80 FR 37356-37358) a notice of proposed policy to inform the public regarding proposed revisions to the criteria set forth in FAA Order 7110.10, Flight Services, Chapter 4, Section 4; and FAA Order 7210.3, Facility Operation and Administration, paragraph 13-4-5, so that the policy would apply to the State of Alaska only. Interested parties were invited to participate in this policy change by submitting written comments of the proposal. No comments were received.

The criteria for providing Airport Advisory (AA) services at Flight Service Stations (FSS) is provided in FAA Order 7210.3, and specifies the criteria for providing Airport Advisory (AA) services; specifically, paragraph 13-4-5, addresses Local Airport Advisory (LAA), Remote Airport Advisory (RAA) and Remote Airport Information Service (RAIS). Section (b) of that paragraph requires, in part, that Flight Service Stations provide RAA when the employee productivity factor is high enough to justify the cost of providing the service.1

Currently, Lockheed Martin provides RAA services at 19 locations. At 18 of the 19 locations, a sample of historical data reflects that pilots contact the RAA service an average of less than 1 time per day. At Millville Municipal Airport in Millville, NJ, pilots contact the RAA service an average of 14 times per day.2 The frequency of RAA service use no longer justifies the continuation of the service due to the lack of productivity.

The FAA will discontinue the requirement for FSSs to provide AA services in the contiguous United States, Puerto Rico, and Hawaii effective October 1, 2015, resulting in services no longer being available at the 19 locations. The AA services in the state of Alaska will not be affected by this change, and will remain due to the unique challenges presented by the remote mountainous terrain and weather conditions across the state.

The FAA will revise the criteria set forth in FAA Order 7110.10, Chapter 4, Section 4; and FAA Order 7210.3, paragraph 13-4-5 to only be applicable to the State of Alaska, and AA services will be discontinued at locations within the CONUS, Puerto Rico, and Hawaii. Due to the policy change, RAA service would no longer be provided at the following airports:

An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the Internet by—

1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);

2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or

3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/.

Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Commenters must identify the docket or amendment number of this notice.

All documents the FAA considered in developing this notice, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item (1) above.

This final rule is part of PBGC's ongoing implementation of the Government Paperwork Elimination Act and is consistent with the Office of Management and Budget's directive to remove regulatory impediments to electronic transactions. The rule builds in flexibility to allow PBGC to update the electronic filing process as technology advances.

PBGC's legal authority for this regulatory action comes from section 4002(b)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), which authorizes PBGC to issue regulations to carry out the purposes of title IV of ERISA; section 4041A(f)(2), which gives PBGC authority to prescribe reporting requirements for terminated plans; section 4245(e)(4), which authorizes PBGC to issue regulations on notices related to insolvency and resource benefit levels; and section 4281(d), which directs PBGC to prescribe by regulation the notice requirements to plan participants and beneficiaries in the event of a benefit suspension under an insolvent plan.

This final rule requires the following notices to be filed electronically with PBGC: Notices of termination under part 4041A, notices of insolvency and of insolvency benefit level under parts 4245 and 4281, and applications for financial assistance under part 4281.

This final rule does not involve any conforming amendments reflecting the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 (MPRA).1 The rule affects only notices to PBGC (not notices to participants or other parties).

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) is a federal corporation created under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to guarantee the payment of pension benefits earned by more than 41 million American workers and retirees in nearly 24,000 private-sector defined benefit pension plans. PBGC administers two insurance programs—one for single-employer defined benefit pension plans and a second for multiemployer defined benefit pension plans.

The multiemployer plan program protects benefits of approximately 10 million workers and retirees in approximately 1,400 plans. A multiemployer plan is a collectively bargained pension arrangement involving two or more unrelated employers, usually in a common industry such as construction or trucking, where workers move from employer to employer on a regular basis. Under PBGC's multiemployer program, when a plan becomes insolvent, PBGC provides financial assistance directly to the insolvent plan sufficient to pay guaranteed benefits to participants and beneficiaries, and the reasonable and necessary administrative expenses of the insolvent plan.

ERISA section 4041A provides for two types of multiemployer plan terminations: mass withdrawal and plan amendment. A mass withdrawal termination occurs when all employers withdraw or cease to be obligated to contribute to the plan. A plan amendment termination occurs when the plan adopts an amendment that provides that participants will receive no credit for service with any employer after a specified date, or an amendment that makes it no longer a covered plan. Unlike terminated single-employer plans, terminated multiemployer plans generally continue to pay all vested benefits out of existing plan assets and withdrawal liability payments.

PBGC's regulation on Termination of Multiemployer Plans (29 CFR part 4041A) implements these provisions, among other things by requiring the plan sponsor of a terminated multiemployer plan to file with PBGC a notice of termination containing basic information necessary to alert PBGC to possible demands on the multiemployer insurance program.

ERISA section 4245(e) requires two types of notices:

• Notice of insolvency, which states a plan sponsor's determination that the plan is or may become insolvent.

• Notice of insolvency benefit level, which states the level of benefits that will be paid during an insolvency year.

Section 4245(e)(4) provides that these notices are to be given in accordance with rules promulgated by PBGC. PBGC's regulation on Notice of Insolvency, 29 CFR part 4245, establishes the procedure for complying with these notice requirements. The regulation allows a single notice of insolvency to cover more than one plan year, thereby generally permitting plan sponsors to file only a single notice (a notice of insolvency benefit level) for any future year. The regulation also prescribes, among other things, the manner in which the notices must be given. The recipients of these notices include PBGC, in addition to other parties.

PBGC's regulation on Duties of Plan Sponsor Following Mass Withdrawal (29 CFR part 4281) implements the requirements of ERISA section 4281. The regulation prescribes rules under which plan sponsors must:

• Provide notices to PBGC and to participants and beneficiaries that a plan is, or will be, insolvent (§§ 4281.43 and 4281.44).

• Provide notices of insolvency benefit level to PBGC and to participants and beneficiaries who are in pay status or may reasonably be expected to enter pay status during the year (§§ 4281.45 and 4281.46).

• Submit an application to PBGC for financial assistance if a plan is, or will be, unable to pay guaranteed benefits when due (§ 4281.47).

Section 4000.3 of PBGC's regulation on Filing, Issuance, Computation of Time, and Record Retention (29 CFR part 4000) requires electronic filing of premium declarations under part 4007 (Payment of Premiums) and information required under part 4010 (Annual Financial and Actuarial Information Reporting).

On January 18, 2011, the President issued Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” to ensure that Federal regulations seek more affordable, less intrusive means to achieve policy goals, and that agencies give careful consideration to the benefits and costs of those regulations. PBGC's Plan for Regulatory Review,2 identifies several regulatory areas for review, including the multiemployer regulations referred to above. PBGC will continue to review its regulations with a view to developing more ideas for improvement.

On April 3, 2015 (at 80 FR 18172), PBGC published a proposed rule to amend parts 4000, 4041A, and 4281 to require electronic filing of certain multiemployer notices.3 PBGC received no comments on the proposed rule. The final regulation is unchanged from the proposed regulation.

The final regulation requires electronic filing with PBGC of the following multiemployer plan filings:

• Notices of termination under part 4041A.

• Notices of insolvency and of insolvency benefit level under part 4245.

• Notices of insolvency and of insolvency benefit level under part 4281 (following mass withdrawal).

• Applications for financial assistance under part 4281 (following mass withdrawal).

PBGC will grant case-by-case exemptions to the electronic filing requirement in appropriate circumstances for filers that demonstrate good cause for exemption. PBGC believes that requiring electronic filing for these notices will result in benefits for both the public and the government.

Electronic filing will simplify the filing process for the public by building in all required and optional fields and including readily accessible guidance in the application. Electronic filing is expected to reduce the need to contact PBGC for assistance. PBGC estimates that the amendments in the rule will result in a total savings in administrative burdens for the public of 25 percent (about 22 hours and $99,000 annually).

Electronic filing will also result in greater efficiencies for the government. Up to now, documents submitted by filers needed to be manually uploaded to electronic depositories. With electronic filing, those documents will be automatically uploaded. Electronic filing will also save the government time by reducing the need to provide assistance to filers. It will also improve the government's recordkeeping, records retrieval, and records archiving process by eliminating the possibility of missing or lost paper files due to human error.

Moreover, the PBGC expects electronic filing will improve the government's ability to protect potential personally identifiable information (PII), or otherwise sensitive information, since only pre-approved personnel will have access to PBGC's electronic records systems, and limited access will be approved for officials of pension plans.

PBGC did not propose to require electronic filing of notices of benefit reduction and of restoration of benefits under part 4281. PBGC may in the future require that other multiemployer filings also be made electronically.

The amendments in this final rule will be applicable for filings made on or after January 1, 2016.

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

Under Section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, a regulatory action is economically significant if “it is likely to result in a rule that may . . . [h]ave 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.” PBGC has determined that this final rule does not cross the $100 million threshold for economic significance and is not otherwise economically significant (see discussion above).

The Regulatory Flexibility Act imposes certain requirements with respect to rules that are subject to the notice and comment requirements of section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act and that are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Unless an agency determines that a final rule is not likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that the agency present a regulatory flexibility analysis at the time of the publication of the final rule describing the impact of the rule on small entities and seeking public comment on such impact. Small entities include small businesses, organizations and governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requirements with respect to this final rule, PBGC considers a small entity to be a plan with fewer than 100 participants. This is the same criterion PBGC uses in other aspects of its regulations involving small plans, and is consistent with certain requirements in Title I of ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code, as well as the definition of a small entity that the Department of Labor (DOL) has used for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Thus, PBGC believes that assessing the impact of the rule on small plans is an appropriate substitute for evaluating the effect on small entities. The definition of small entity considered appropriate for this purpose differs, however, from a definition of small business based on size standards promulgated by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) pursuant to the Small Business Act. Therefore, in the proposed rule, PBGC requested comments on the appropriateness of the size standard used in evaluating the impact on small entities of the amendments to the benefit payments regulation. No comments were received on this point.

On the basis of its definition of small entity, PBGC certifies under section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) that the amendments in this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Very few multiemployer plans are small.4 And, as discussed above, the amendments will not have a significant economic impact on entities of any size. Accordingly, as provided in section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), sections 603 and 604 will not apply.

PBGC is submitting the information requirements under this final rule to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

The collection of information in part 4041A is approved under control number 1212-0020 (expires June 30, 2017). PBGC estimates that there will be 10 respondents each year and that the total annual burden of the collection of information will be about 17 hours and $3,850.00 (about 2 hours and $385 per respondent).

The collection of information in part 4245 is approved under control number 1212-0033 (expires June 30, 2017). PBGC estimates that there will be one respondent each year and that the total annual burden of the collection of information will be about $1,550.

The collection of information in part 4281 is approved under control number 1212-0032 (expires July 31, 2017). PBGC estimates that there will be 324 respondents each year and that the total annual burden of the collection of information will be about 61 hours and $309,000 (about $950 per respondent).

For the reasons given above, the PBGC is amending 29 CFR parts 4000, 4041A, and 4281 as follows.

Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its program includes, among other things, “a State law which provides for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the requirements of this Act . . .; and rules and regulations consistent with regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to this Act.” See 30 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1) and (7). On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the Pennsylvania program, effective July 31, 1982. You can find background information on the Pennsylvania program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and the conditions of approval of the Pennsylvania program in the July 30, 1982, Federal Register (47 FR 33050). You can also find later actions concerning the Pennsylvania program and program amendments at 30 CFR 938.11, 938.12, 938.13, 938.15, and 938.16.

OSMRE published a final rule in the August 10, 2010, Federal Register (75 FR 48526), herein referred to as the 2010 final rule, requiring Pennsylvania “to ensure that its program provides suitable, enforceable funding mechanisms that are sufficient to guarantee coverage of the full cost of land reclamation at all sites originally permitted and bonded under the [alternative bonding system (ABS)].” This was codified in the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 938.16(h). OSMRE approved several changes in the 2010 final rule. However, OSMRE concluded that two sites, originally permitted and bonded under the ABS, held insufficient bonds after the conversion to a full cost bonding system to guarantee that the land would be reclaimed in the event forfeiture occurred.

The two sites at issue are anthracite operations that were permitted by Lehigh Coal & Navigation (LCN) and Coal Contractors Inc. (CCI). Before the 2010 final rule was published, Pennsylvania had indicated that these two sites were bonded in an amount that was less than the full cost needed to complete reclamation in the event that forfeiture occurred. Although Pennsylvania contended that these sites were not reclamation liabilities, as the bond deficiency at both sites was being addressed through other means, OSMRE determined that Pennsylvania's approach to resolving this issue did not provide the same level of financial assurance as that guaranteed by posting a full cost bond. As a result, OSMRE revised 30 CFR 938.16(h), and required that Pennsylvania demonstrate that sufficient funds existed to ensure the land reclamation would be completed at the LCN and CCI sites.

In response to OSMRE's 2010 final rule, Pennsylvania submitted information which it believed demonstrated that it is able to guarantee sufficient funds to cover the full reclamation costs at the LCN and CCI sites. After providing three submissions, Pennsylvania requests the removal of the required amendment. Each submission is discussed below.

Submission No. 1: By letter dated October 1, 2010 (Administrative Record No. PA 802.72), Pennsylvania sent us a response as required by 30 CFR 938.16(h). We announced receipt of this submission in the February 7, 2011, Federal Register (76 FR 6587). In the same document, we opened the public comment period and provided an opportunity for a public hearing or meeting on the adequacy of the submission. OSMRE received comments, but did not hold a public hearing or meeting because neither was requested. The public comment period ended on March 9, 2011.

In the first submission, Pennsylvania provided information that it believed demonstrated that available funds were more than sufficient to guarantee coverage of the full cost of land reclamation at the two sites. The information submitted to support Pennsylvania's contention included a demonstration of available funding, the Coal Contractors 2009 Annual Bond Review, LCN's annual bond review, updated estimates for the ABS bond forfeiture discharge treatment sites, and updated land reclamation estimates. Based on this information, Pennsylvania requested the removal of the previously required amendment.

At the time of this submission, the following conditions existed:

The submission indicated a balance of $19,496,955 in the Surface Mining Conservation and Reclamation Fund (SMCR Fund) that was available for ABS land and discharge treatment for ABS legacy sites. Projected expenses at the time for ABS land reclamation and discharge treatment (design and construction) was $12,877,636, leaving a balance of $6,619,319 available to address the reclamation funding needs of $5,530,786 for the LCN and CCI sites, if forfeited.

Pennsylvania also stated that in the unlikely event that both of these sites would require expenditure of funds for land reclamation, then at least some of the cost for the design and construction of the ABS bond forfeiture discharge treatment facilities would be paid for using the Reclamation Fee Operation and Maintenance account (RFO&M account). There was approximately $1 million of immediately available funds in this account that could be used for this purpose exclusively. Pennsylvania believed that this demonstration of available funding warranted removal of the required amendment.

Submission No. 2: On June 13, 2011 (Administrative Record No. PA 802.80), we received additional information from Pennsylvania regarding recent developments with the LCN site. The permit had been transferred to BET Associates IV, LLC (BET), resulting in the posting of a full cost bond in an amount to cover the land reclamation obligation. We announced this submission in the October 17, 2011, Federal Register (76 FR 64048). In the same document, we opened the public comment period and provided an opportunity for a public hearing or meeting on the adequacy of the submission. OSMRE received comments, but did not hold a public hearing or meeting because neither was requested. The public comment period ended on November 1, 2011.

Included in the second submission was the mining permit, Part C (Authorization to Mine), and the calculation sheet documenting the bond amount. At the time of this submission, the following conditions existed:

Submission No. 3: On November 6, 2012, we received additional information from Pennsylvania regarding recent developments involving the CCI permit bonding status (Administrative Record No. PA 802.85). We announced receipt of this submission in the February 19, 2013, Federal Register (78 FR 11617). In the same document, we opened the public comment period and provided an opportunity for a public hearing or meeting on the adequacy of the submission. OSMRE received comments, but did not hold a public hearing or meeting because neither was requested. The public comment period ended on March 6, 2013.

The third submission included a letter to the operator regarding the annual bond review, along with the supporting documentation supporting the review, which included the annual bond calculation summary.

At the time of this submission, the following conditions existed:

After three submissions, Pennsylvania believed it had provided sufficient information as required by OSMRE to satisfy the 30 CFR 938.16(h) requirements. As a result, Pennsylvania requested that OSMRE remove the previously required amendment.

Discussed below are our findings concerning this request to remove a previously required amendment to the Pennsylvania program pursuant to SMCRA and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17. After reviewing the information submitted, OSMRE is removing the previously required amendment that was codified at 30 CFR 938.16(h).

OSMRE finds that Pennsylvania demonstrated through its bonding calculations and reclamation estimates that sufficient funds are available to guarantee coverage of the reclamation needs at the LCN and CCI sites, in satisfaction of the previously required amendment. Therefore, we are approving this request to remove paragraph (h) of 30 CFR 938.16.

We asked for public comments on each of the three submissions. No requests for public meetings were received. On March 5, 2013, we received comments from a group of citizen organizations collectively known as “the Federation,” which represents six organizations: (1) Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future (PennFUTURE), (2) Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs, Inc., (3) Sierra Club, (4) Pennsylvania Council of Trout Unlimited, (5) Center for Coalfield Justice, and (6) Mountain Watershed Association.

PennFUTURE serves as legal counsel for these organizations with respect to alleged inadequacies of Pennsylvania's bonding program and continues to serve in that capacity by responding to related matters, such as this program amendment. PennFUTURE provided comments on Pennsylvania's initial submission, which we responded to in the 2010 final rule (Administrative Record No. PA 802.43).

In addition to the March 5, 2013, comments (Administrative Record No. PA 802.88) on the latest submission from Pennsylvania, PennFUTURE also submitted comments on March 9, 2011 (Administrative Record No. PA 802.79), regarding the initial October 1, 2010, submission and on November 1, 2011 (Administrative Record No. PA 802.83), regarding Pennsylvania's first supplemental submission dated June 13, 2011 (Administrative Record No. PA 802.80), concerning the LCN site.

PennFUTURE originally contended that the program amendment submission was deficient for various reasons. As noted in our findings, however, subsequent events occurred after the original submission, which affected the financial solvency and prior bond deficiency at the two sites. Since the comments submitted by PennFUTURE have largely restated its earlier comments, OSMRE is addressing those comments still applicable. We are addressing the March 5, 2013, comments first and they are as follows:

PennFUTURE submitted previous comments regarding the adequacy of this site. However, subsequent to the receipt of those comments, PennFUTURE now agrees that, as a result of the reclamation work performed at the CCI site since Submission No. 1, the site finally appears to have an enforceable, full cost reclamation guarantee in place considering the current bond amount and the estimated cost to complete reclamation of the site. Since the most recent bond calculation summary submitted (revised summary for 2011) was prepared, PennFUTURE recommends that OSMRE review CCI's annual bond calculation summary for 2012 to confirm that the site is adequately bonded.

OSMRE's Response: On August 20, 2013, Pennsylvania advised OSMRE that the CCI site had been backfilled and graded, with five acres to be seeded in the fall of 2013. There has been no corresponding bond reduction. The amount remains $804,625, which is sufficient to complete reclamation (Administrative Record No. PA 802.65).

According to PennFUTURE, Pennsylvania has not demonstrated that an enforceable, full cost land reclamation guarantee exists for the LCN site because there is no fully funded guarantee of perpetual treatment for the LCN site's post-mining discharge. PennFUTURE asserts that the perpetual post-mining discharge from the LCN site puts the adequacy of the treatment trust for that discharge directly at issue in this program amendment proceeding. As a result, PennFUTURE contends that OSMRE must decide a number of issues concerning Pennsylvania's implementation of treatment trusts raised in PennFUTURE's February 27, 2009, comments on Pennsylvania's August 1, 2008, proposed ABS program amendment (Administrative Record No. PA 802.60).

PennFUTURE states that $8,423,000 is needed for land reclamation only and does not apply to discharges. The perpetual post-mining discharge from the LCN site puts the adequacy of the treatment trust for that discharge directly at issue in this proceeding. In order to demonstrate that the surety reclamation bond for the LCN site fully guarantees all land reclamation at the site and will not be used to address mine drainage treatment liability, Pennsylvania must demonstrate that the treatment trust for the LCN site is both adequate in amount and fully funded, which it has failed to do as explained below.

PennFUTURE states that its November 1, 2011, comments on Pennsylvania's first supplemental program amendment submission included the May 5, 2011, Post-Mining Treatment Trust Consent Order and Agreement between Pennsylvania and BET (BET Trust CO&A), which established a payment schedule for funding a perpetual treatment trust.

PennFUTURE states that its comments showed that Pennsylvania had failed to demonstrate that the surety bond posted by BET fully guarantees all outstanding land reclamation at the LCN site because it had failed to demonstrate that an adequate and fully funded trust is in place that guarantees perpetual treatment of the post-mining discharge from the LCN site. PennFUTURE's earlier comment letter concluded:

“Under Pennsylvania's approved regulatory program, surety bonds cover all varieties of potential reclamation liabilities at a permitted coal mine. Thus, until a fully funded treatment trust is in place that fully guarantees perpetual treatment of the post-mining discharge from the LCN site, the $8,423,000 surety bond posted by BET is stretched too thin, covering an estimated $8,423,000 in land reclamation liability plus perhaps an equivalent amount in mine drainage treatment liability. As a result, the surety bond currently does not provide fully, dollar-for-dollar coverage of the potential land reclamation liabilities at the LCN site. [Pennsylvania] therefore has not carried its burden of demonstrating that the combination of BET's surety bond and the transferred [Land Reclamation Financial Guarantees (LRFG)] `are sufficient to guarantee coverage of the full cost of land reclamation' at the LCN site.”

PennFUTURE states that for any primacy mine with a post-mining discharge, like the LCN site, the conventional reclamation bond covers both the outstanding land reclamation obligation and the outstanding discharge treatment obligation, unless and until the mine operator posts a treatment trust or other financial guarantee that is both: (1) Adequate in amount to provide perpetual treatment and (2) fully funded. It follows that in order to find that the surety bond posted by BET for the LCN site is unencumbered by any potential mine drainage treatment liability, and therefore, is adequate to fully guarantee the outstanding land reclamation liability, OSMRE must find that the treatment trust for the LCN site is both (1) adequate in amount to provide perpetual treatment and (2) fully funded. PennFUTURE goes on to comment about the calculation and assumptions used to estimate the valuing of trust assets to derive a treatment trust amount that results in financial solvency. These issues were raised in detail in their 2009 comments on Pennsylvania's initial submission. PennFUTURE further asserts that the current program amendment presents, concretely for one specific mine, the issues OSMRE declined to address in the abstract, for a range of potential future scenarios, in ruling on the ABS program amendment in the 2010 final rule.

PennFUTURE references several developments relevant to the adequacy and funding status of the LCN site treatment trust since the submission of their last comment letter on November 1, 2011. The developments include the LCN site's pollutant discharge limits and PennFUTURE's submission of comment letters detailing the reasons why the pollutant loads and effluent limitations Pennsylvania proposed for relocating discharge from the LCN site are excessive. PennFUTURE further states that correcting those errors and reducing the allowable pollutant loads and applicable effluent limitations will increase the estimated costs of treating the discharge from the LCN site and thus, the required amount of the treatment trust. Additionally, PennFUTURE also references the completion of a 2012 OSMRE report documenting a review of the Al Hamilton Treatment Trust Fund. While this report is not directly related to the LCN site, PennFUTURE provides it as an example of perceived trust inadequacies. This report documents that when the trust was established in 2003, roughly half of its assets were coal reserves that now appear to be valueless, leaving the primary portion of the trust at only a fraction of the value required to provide adequate and perpetual treatment of the dozens of mine discharges it covers. In reference to OSMRE's Al Hamilton Trust Fund Report attached in its letter dated March 5, 2013, PennFUTURE stated that the fractional funding of the trust has forced Pennsylvania “to triage and prioritize the systems needing attention, to spread out the expenditures to reduce the financial stress,” leaving some discharges wholly or partially untreated and others lacking adequate treatment.

PennFUTURE states that the harsh lessons provided by this example are that something appearing to have great value today may, in fact, be worthless when needed in the future, and that for a financial mechanism that is required to provide a rock-solid, perpetual guarantee, only money in the bank qualifies as money in the bank. In light of this concern, no discharge treatment trust should be considered fully funded—that is, to provide the iron-clad reclamation guarantee required by law—unless the primary portion of the trust consists of cash or assets that are easily and immediately convertible to cash.

PennFUTURE states that when Pennsylvania enters into a CO&A with a mine operator establishing a payment schedule for funding a treatment trust, it typically does not immediately consider the trust fully funded based on the operator's documented payment obligation. To the contrary, it is only when the mine operator makes the final payment and the trustee has the cash in hand that Pennsylvania changes the designation from “payment plan” to “fully funded”.

According to PennFUTURE, the inability to market the Al Hamilton Treatment Trust's coal reserves shows that any trust asset that is not easily and immediately convertible to cash is something like a payment plan—it may or may not deliver the expected value when the time comes. Just as a payment plan trust is not considered fully funded until the last payment is delivered, PennFUTURE states that any trust containing an asset like coal reserves may not be considered fully funded until the asset actually delivers its estimated value by being converted to cash.

OSMRE's Response: Pennsylvania's regulations require adjustment of the reclamation fee, which is deposited into the RFO&M account, to cover any increased costs of water treatment for all ABS forfeited sites in any given year. Pennsylvania's annual adjustments to the reclamation fee amount will be evaluated by OSMRE through its oversight authority. In short, the regulations create the mandate to fully fund discharge treatment costs for all existing and potential ABS legacy sites in perpetuity. Therefore, should the LCN site-specific bond be forfeited, the entire amount of that bond will be used for land reclamation and treatment costs and will be covered by the treatment trust and supplemented, if necessary, by the adjustable reclamation fee. As noted above, sufficient funds exist in the site-specific bond to cover land reclamation costs. In an email dated June 18, 2013, Pennsylvania, at our request, provided the 2012 annual bond calculation, which indicated a reclamation obligation of $10,448,389 as well as a surplus of $74,611 at the LCN site (Administrative Record No. PA 802.89). Pennsylvania has demonstrated that its program provides suitable, enforceable funding mechanisms sufficient to guarantee the full cost of land reclamation at all sites originally permitted and bonded under the ABS, in accordance with 30 CFR 938.16(h). Therefore, the previously required amendment can be removed.

PennFUTURE asserts that OSMRE cannot find that the land reclamation at the LCN site is fully guaranteed unless it also finds that perpetual treatment of the mine drainage discharge from the LCN site is fully guaranteed.

PennFUTURE states that in addition to being fully funded, a treatment trust must be adequate in amount to provide the firm guarantee of perpetual treatment required by law. Thus, in order to find that the treatment of the discharge from the LCN site is fully guaranteed (which, as explained above, is a prerequisite to finding that the reclamation of the land at the LCN site is fully guaranteed), OSMRE must determine whether Pennsylvania, in calculating the amount of the BET/LCN site trust, applied assumptions and methods that yield a dollar figure that is sufficient to provide the required firm guarantee of perpetual treatment.

PennFUTURE claims that the first complication is that Pennsylvania cannot, at this point, accurately project the treatment costs because it has yet to set the effluent limit targets that such treatment will be required to meet, much less to approve the installation of the new treatment system(s) that will be designed to meet them. PennFUTURE additionally asserts that the BET Trust CO&A estimated the present discounted value for perpetual operation and maintenance of the Mine's “New Treatment System(s)” at $13.8 million a year before Pennsylvania produced a draft of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit revision that would govern the new system's discharge. However, according to PennFUTURE, the effluent limitations in the final revision of the NPDES permit must be more stringent than those proposed in Pennsylvania's draft of the permit.

The second complication, according to PennFUTURE, is that the requirement that the amount of the trust be sufficient to provide a firm guarantee of perpetual treatment forces OSMRE to address all of the issues concerning the inadequacy of Pennsylvania treatment trusts raised in our coalition's February 27, 2009, comments on the 2008 ABS program amendment. PennFUTURE claims that OSMRE declined to address those issues in the abstract across a multitude of potential scenarios in its 2010 final rule on the ABS program amendment. 75 FR 48526. Now, however, the abstract has been made concrete and the programmatic concern has been reduced to a single, specific case. In short, PennFUTURE believes that the issues are squarely and concretely presented and OSMRE must decide them in order to rule on the adequacy of the reclamation guarantee for the LCN site.

PennFUTURE incorporates by reference all earlier comments concerning the deficiencies of Pennsylvania's trust fund calculations, along with the many exhibits supporting those comments. Issues addressed in those earlier comments included trust fund volatility, trust investment portfolio composition, treatment trust portfolio rates of return, and the 75-year recapitalization cost calculation.

OSMRE's Response: As we addressed in our response above, Pennsylvania's regulations require adjustment of the reclamation fee to fully fund discharge treatment costs for all ABS forfeited sites. In the event that the LCN site-specific bond is forfeited, the entire bond amount will be used for land reclamation and treatment costs will be covered by the treatment trust and supplemented by the adjustable reclamation fee, if necessary. In an email dated June 18, 2013, Pennsylvania, at our request, indicated that the 2012 bond calculation amount for the LCN site is $10,448,389. Further, documentation was provided that indicated a surplus of $74,611 at the site (Administrative Record No. PA 802.89). Thus, Pennsylvania has demonstrated that its program provides suitable, enforceable funding mechanisms sufficient to guarantee the full cost of land reclamation at all sites originally permitted and bonded under the ABS, in accordance with 30 CFR 938.16(h). Therefore, the previously required amendment can be removed.

As we addressed in our findings above, Pennsylvania's submissions satisfy the requirements set forth in the previously required amendment and demonstrate the existence of sufficient funds to guarantee coverage of the full cost of land reclamation at both the LCN and CCI sites. Therefore, OSMRE is removing the previously required amendment, at subsection (h) of 30 CFR 938.16.

On October 5, 2010, under the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i) and section 503(b) of SMCRA, we requested comments on the amendment from various Federal agencies with an actual or potential interest in the Pennsylvania program (Administrative Record No. PA 802.73). We received a response of no comment from the Mine Safety and Health Administration on October 18, 2010 (Administrative Record No. PA 802.74). No other comments were received, with the exception noted below.

Under 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), we are required to obtain a written concurrence from EPA for those provisions of the program amendment that relate to air or water quality standards issued under the authority of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). None of the revisions that Pennsylvania proposed to make in this amendment pertain to air or water quality standards. Therefore, we did not ask EPA to concur on the amendment. However, we received comments from EPA on November 12, 2010, regarding the submission (Administrative Record No. PA 802.76). EPA concluded that the submission was limited to land reclamation. EPA, however, mentioned that well-funded bonding programs are necessary to provide for post-mining treatment, prevent perpetual post-mining drainage problems, as well as protect the hydrologic balance and ensure compliance with water quality standards. In response to EPA's comments, OSMRE agrees that an adequately funded bonding program is crucial to prevent post-mining pollutional discharges.

Based on the above findings, we are removing the previously required amendment at 30 CFR 938.16(h). To implement this decision, we are amending the Federal regulations, at 30 CFR part 938, that codify decisions concerning the Pennsylvania program. We find that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this final rule effective immediately. Section 503(a) of SMCRA requires that the State's program demonstrate that the State has the capability of carrying out the provisions of the Act and meeting its purposes. Making this rule effective immediately will expedite that process. SMCRA requires consistency of State and Federal standards.

This rule does not have takings implications. This determination is based on the analysis performed for the counterpart Federal regulation.

This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866.

The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and has determined that this rule meets the applicable standards of subsections (a) and (b) of that section. However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of State regulatory programs and program amendments because each program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by OSMRE. Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State regulatory programs and program amendments submitted by the States must be based solely on a determination of whether the submittal is consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and whether the other requirements of 30 CFR parts 730, 731, and 732 have been met.

This rule does not have Federalism implications. SMCRA delineates the roles of the Federal and State governments with regard to the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations. One of the purposes of SMCRA is to “establish a nationwide program to protect society and the environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining operations.” Section 503(a)(1) of SMCRA requires that State laws regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations be “in accordance with” the requirements of SMCRA, and section 503(a)(7) requires that State programs contain rules and regulations “consistent with” regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to SMCRA.

In accordance with Executive Order 13175, we have evaluated the potential effects of this rule on federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that the rule does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. The basis for this determination is that our decision is on a State regulatory program and does not involve Federal regulations involving Indian lands.

On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 which requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rule that is (1) considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

This rule does not require an environmental impact statement because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).

This rule does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507 et seq.).

The Department of the Interior certifies 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 et seq.). The State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small entities. In making the determination as to whether this rule would have a significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations.

This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule: (a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million; (b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and (c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This determination is based upon the fact that the State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulation was not considered a major rule.

This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any given year. This determination is based upon the fact that the State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulation did not impose an unfunded mandate.

Editorial Note: This document was received for publication by the Office of Federal Register on September 10, 2015.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR part 938 is amended as follows:

This rule implements the authority added by the SSI Extension for Elderly and Disabled Refugees Act of 2008 (“2008 Act”), as amended by the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (“2010 Act”), to offset overpayments of Federal taxes (referred to as “tax refund offset”) to collect delinquent state unemployment compensation debts. The Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) has incorporated the procedures necessary to collect state unemployment compensation debts as part of the Treasury Offset Program, a centralized offset program operated by Treasury's Bureau of the Fiscal Service (“Fiscal Service”).

On January 28, 2011, Fiscal Service (then, the Financial Management Service) published an interim rule with request for comments at 76 FR 5070, implementing this new authority. Specifically, this rule amended Fiscal Service regulations to include unemployment compensation debts among the types of state debts that may be collected by tax refund offset.

Treasury sought comments on all aspects of the proposed rule. Treasury received comments from one private company that provides worldwide tax services. The following is a discussion of the substantive issues raised in the comments.

The commenter suggested that the rule provide guidelines to the states regarding how to notify debtor populations who may be affected by this rule. While this comment is outside the scope of this rule, Fiscal Service notes that this rule requires debtor-specific pre-offset notification (see 31 CFR 285.8(c)(3)(i)). The commenter also suggested that Fiscal Service mandate that states provide a pre-offset notice by certified mail, return receipt requested. In the 2010 Act, Congress explicitly removed this requirement in the case of unemployment compensation debt. Fiscal Service is unaware of any evidence that certified mail is more likely to reach the debtor than is regular first class mail, and notes that the cost of sending a notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, is high relative to sending a notice by regular first class mail. Therefore, Fiscal Service has not adopted this suggestion. As required by statute, however, notice must be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested prior to pursuing Federal tax refund offset to collect delinquent state income tax obligations.

The commenter also suggested that Fiscal Service mandate that the notice to the debtor include certain details about the debt. Fiscal Service notes that, prior to submitting a debt to the Treasury Offset Program for tax refund offset purposes, a state is required to certify to Fiscal Service that it has provided the debtor with sufficient due process, including identification of the debt the state seeks to collect by offset. The information that must be provided may differ with the specific circumstances, and states may provide notice beyond what is specifically required by statute and regulation. Because identification of the debt is already required, Fiscal Service has not incorporated this suggestion.

The commenter suggested that this rule provide specific actions that states should take and state what documentation they should retain to demonstrate that they have made reasonable efforts to collect a debt prior to pursuing Federal tax refund offset. The rule provides detail on what a reasonable effort includes—namely, making written demand on the debtor for payment and following state law and procedure. In addition, the rule was designed to provide flexibility because what constitutes a reasonable effort may differ based on the specific circumstances. Therefore, Fiscal Service believes that providing specific actions that states should take is unnecessary and not practicable and has not adopted this suggestion.

The commenter suggested that debtors be able to obtain information through a centralized location within the Treasury Offset Program Web site and through an automated telephone system on why their payment was offset and on state appeals processes. While this suggestion is outside the scope of this rule, Fiscal Service notes that debtors currently may access certain offset information through an automated telephone system. Fiscal Service further notes that it is exploring other self-service options that would permit debtors to obtain information about their own debts.

The commenter suggested that the description of the required appeal process contain more detail. Fiscal Service is not aware of any additional detail that needs to be included and, therefore, has not made any changes to the rule based on this suggestion.

The commenter also suggested that Fiscal Service consider extending the period of dispute to 90 days because debtors are unlikely to have retained records for long periods of time. Fiscal Service notes that several other delinquent debt collection tools provide a due process period of 60 days or fewer, including the offset of Federal nontax payments to collect Federal nontax debts (31 CFR 285.5(d)(6)(ii)(A)); the offset of Federal nontax payments to collect state debts (31 CFR 285.6(e)(2)); the offset of Federal tax payments to collect Federal nontax debts (31 CFR 285.2(d)(1)(ii)(B)); and the administrative garnishment of wages to collect Federal nontax debts (31 U.S.C. 3720D(b)(2)). Moreover, Fiscal Service believes that an additional 30 days is not likely to help debtors locate and produce such records, and is not aware of any evidence that 60 days is insufficient. Given the time period for other debt collection tools, Fiscal Service believes it would be best to leave the interim rule unchanged.

The commenter also expressed concern that lifting the 10-year time limitation will create burdens for Treasury's Internal Revenue Service, due to an increase in injured spouse claims. Fiscal Service is unaware of any evidence to support this concern. Fiscal Service further notes that the 10-year limitation was removed by statute.

This rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Because no notice of proposed rulemaking was required for this rule, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13132, federalism. This rule will not have substantial direct effects on states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Participation in the program governed by this rule is voluntary for the states; this rule only sets forth the general procedures for state participation. States already participate in offset of tax refunds to collect delinquent state income tax obligations pursuant to 31 CFR 285.8. This rule merely updates the regulations to reflect the statutory change authorizing states to submit additional debts to Treasury Offset Program for collection by tax refund offset. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

For the reasons stated above, the interim rule amending 31 CFR 285.8, published at 76 FR 5070, January 28, 2011, is adopted as final without change.

Executive Summary

The purpose of this regulatory action is to describe requirements for criminal history background checks, including reinvestigation, and self-reporting, for individuals involved with the provision of child care services.

The legal authorities for this rule include: 5 U.S.C. 2105, 10 U.S.C. chapter 47, 42 U.S.C. 13041.

The major provisions of this regulatory action include providing procedures for requirements for criminal history background checks listing the types of background checks, and descriptions of reinvestigation and self-reporting.

This rule is intended to support the workforce mission of the DoD and implement current law that covers individuals expected to have regular contact with children in the performance of child care services on a DoD installation or DoD-sanctioned program. The estimated costs of the rule are $10 million annually. This cost includes administration costs; required FBI fingerprint Investigations Child Care National Agency Check and Inquiries checks ($125/NACI); State Criminal History Repository checks ($25/each state the individual resided in); and periodic reinvestigations. We do not believe that this rule will impose substantial direct costs on state and local governments.

This rule is part of DoD's retrospective plan, completed in August 2011, under Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.” DoD's full plan and updates can be accessed at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;dct=FR+PR+N+O+SR;rpp=10;po=0;D=DOD-2011-OS-0036.

The Department of Defense published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on October 1, 2014 (79 FR 59168-59173) for a 60-day public comment period. We received 22 comments. Five comments expressed support for the rule and no response is required. One comment was withdrawn. The remaining comments are listed below.

Comment ID DOD-2014-OS-0009-0003:

• The law still states that any conviction for a sex crime, an offense involving a child victim, or a drug felony, may be grounds for denying employment or for dismissal of an employee. Public Law 101-647. The word may give too much flexibility in the decision making process to hiring agents in determining what to do with results of the background check. The review board may either bar employment based on the offenses listed out in the statute or excuse the background check results. Agency processes should spell out more specifically which offenses are bars and which are not.

Response: The commenter has referenced the summary paragraph at the beginning of the rule, which is not the rule itself. Please see § 86.6(c) for specific criteria for automatic and presumptive disqualifiers, which does not use the term, “may.”

• It is imperative that a thorough review, investigation and study of different systems for background checks is completed on each organization interacting with children.

Response: This rule/policy was developed in collaboration with the Military Services, which are responsible for providing detailed procedures that meet the overall DoD requirements in this rule to ensure the rule/policy is implemented correctly.

Comment ID DOD-2014-OS-0009-0004:

• This rule includes all current employees, contractors and specific volunteers, in addition to future applicants, which is bound to create a backlog for which no solution is presented, at least in the current rule.

Response: This rule does not create a new system. It updates existing policy for background checks.

• This rule addresses foreign nationals in a way that could be ambiguous in its application. The definition describes a foreign national as not a citizen of the United States. This encompasses a fair amount of specific volunteers, especially in the religious ministries at overseas DoD facilities. These volunteers, innocent of any criminal wrong doing, may not fall under host country agreements and therefore be unable to continue their work. This would be an unfair outcome for those individuals and the organizations that rely on an already limited pool of volunteers. A similar outcome is possible for those foreign nationals who are military members or spouses who are not yet U.S. citizens that reside in the U.S. and work on DoD facilities.

Response: There are policies and procedures in place to ensure foreign nationals receive appropriate background checks or work under line-of-sight supervision (LOSS) in order to continue their work.

• The rule seems to exclude subcontractors from its application. This may be due to the potential increased burden on first line contractors to ensure all its subs are in compliance. This is frankly unacceptable as a lot of what occurs on DoD facilities, especially overseas, is accomplished by subcontractors.

Response: The exclusion of subcontractors has been deleted from the definition of contractors.

Comment ID DOD-2014-OS-0009-0005: I'm confused by the language in § 86.6(b), which references “(a)(6)(i)” and “(a)(6)(ix)” as being “in this section.” I can't find the quoted section. This may be my error, or perhaps it is a clerical oversight.

Response: The reference should be (a)(5)(i) and (a)(5)(ix). Section 86.6(b) has been updated with the accurate reference.

Comment ID DOD-2014-OS-0009-0006: Why limit the background checks to individuals with “regular contact with children?” The definition of “regular contact with children” excludes those with access to children. The narrow reach of the proposed rule seems to leave out serious threats. Limited resources could be to blame.

Response: It is beyond the scope of DoD to conduct a background check on any individual who has access to children. This rule/policy is intended to ensure appropriate checks of those who work in DoD-sanctioned child care services programs.

Comment ID DOD-2014-OS-0009-0007: Absent documented statistical research to the contrary, the Department of Defense has not established that individuals who are convicted drug felons are any more likely to threaten a child's safety than any other citizen of the United States. Please modify the proposed rule to omit the class “persons with a drug felony” from the screening process for federal jobs within the Department of Defense that serve children under the age of 18.

Response: Inclusion of a “felony conviction of a drug offense” as an automatic disqualifier was based on careful and objective analysis regarding how to protect children in DoD child care services programs. A felony conviction of a drug offense could adversely impact the integrity of the position and the safety and well-being of children in DoD care.

Comment ID DOD-2014-OS-0009-0008:

• Costs: $10 million annually is a large amount of money. How crucial are each of the checks and investigations and how necessary is it for reinvestigations to take place every 5 years if the surfacing of derogatory information will trigger a reinvestigation anyways? I like Executive Orders 13563, and it seems to address these questions, however it states that it is not economically significant, which makes me wonder whether alternatives ways to regulate and minimize costs are properly being explored and examined. The price of each component, for example video surveillances or conspicuous marking, should be strictly scrutinized. What other programs is the use of this money being indirectly taken away from? Additionally, what process will determine that the state and local governments will not be substantially affected financially and what does substantial mean? It is great that employers and a substantial number of small entities will not be significantly impacted under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, but how far do the costs extend to government contracts and employees within the state?

Response: The requirements for the initial checks and regular 5 year reinvestigations are crucial to ensuring protection of children in DoD child care services programs. As background check systems are updated to report derogatory information more immediately, this rule/policy may be updated to revise the every 5 year requirement. The costs of the investigations are borne by the DoD, and not by the individual or his or her employer or the State. This policy update does not and cannot mandate that State, local, and tribal governments adopt new, unfunded regulatory obligations.

• Privacy and Relevancy: Those in charge of the background checks are about to look at any other available information that is relevant (listed under Adjudication). I fear that some may abuse this and unfairly use information that is not so relevant against an applicant.

Response: Adjudicators are trained to appropriately assess information received as part of a background checks in accordance with law and policy. Individuals who abuse their access to information are not operating in accordance with laws, regulations and policies.

• Categorizing Care Provider, Providers, and Personnel performing duties in athletic programs: The definitions for these types of jobs can easily be stretched to many things (for example, could babysitting under certain circumstances count?). Child care or youth activities could mean so many things that do not necessarily require these extensive checks. My obvious hesitancy expressed in these comments and questions comes from my concern for costs for this rule as well as unfair burdens placed on individuals that may have a poor history, but a history that is unrelated to the wrongdoings that their guilt from these tests would be impliedly accusing them of, or a history that is simply in the past and different from their present state (for example a minor criminal record or drug use that has been overcome). It is honorable to aim to protect our children, but it is also important to protect our citizens and employees who are trying to live happy lives and contribute to the economy in the best ways that they can.

Response: The categories of individuals who require a criminal history background check, which includes all individuals who have regular contact with children under 18 years of age in DoD-sanctioned child care services programs, was established in accordance with Public Law 101-647 in order to protect the health and well-being of children in such programs. The costs of the specific investigations required pursuant to this rule have been budgeted and are borne by the Department of Defense and not by the individual or his or her employer or the state.

• Lastly, it concerns me that the DoD Components will evaluate the disqualifications AND ALSO oversee procedures for the appeal of unfavorable determinations. This system has the potential to be unjust.

Response: There is an appeals process that individuals can pursue should they feel they have been treated unjustly. The DoD Components will establish and oversee procedures for the appeal of unfavorable determinations for all categories of individuals. The procedures for civilian personnel are subject to Volume 731 of DoDI 1400.25, DoD Civilian Personnel Management System.

Comment ID DOD-2014-OS-0009-0009: Under § 86.4(c), not only individuals who have current DoD affiliation but also individuals who have prior DoD affiliation must undergo an IRC. I am curious why this would be necessary. If a person no longer has an affiliation with the DoD and is not going to have contact with the DoD child care service, why go through the trouble of checking all those individuals with prior affiliation?

Response: Section 86.4(a) has been modified to include this requirement so that it is clear the IRC is only conducted if the individual (who has a prior DoD affiliation) is undergoing a background check because he/she will have regular contact with children in DoD child care services programs.

Comment ID DOD-2014-OS-0009-0010:

• Section 86.4 Policy does not contain any actual policy as to why these rules are being proposed. It would be helpful if the section included something pertaining to the importance of the protection of children from known child abusers, drug users etc. A specific policy will help when looking at what is important in conducting a background check (in example, a person with a forma addiction who has undergone rehabilitation who has had no adverse contact with children.) Also, the policy will help the DoD in defending any appeals from potential employees who were denied employment.

Response: Section 86.4 has been updated with additional language indicating why the rule is being promulgated.

• A required amount of employment for a LOSS supervisor as an extra safeguard will also help promote the policy of the proposed rules.

Response: The role of the LOSS supervisor is to ensure that an individual who does not yet have a completed background check remains in the line of sight of another individual who does have a completed background check. The LOSS supervisor is not necessarily supervising the performance of the other individual; the LOSS supervisor is only ensuring that individual is not left alone with children.

Comment ID DOD-2014-OS-0009-0011: It seems as though we should require the caregivers themselves to pay for the background checks. It is not uncommon for employers to require employees to pay the costs associated with licensing or certifications.

Response: Background checks should not be compared to elective licenses and certifications. The costs of the specific investigations required pursuant to this Rule have been budgeted and are borne by the Department of Defense and not by the individual or his or her employer or the state. By law, background checks are required for federal agencies that hire or contract for hire in the provision of care to children under the age of 18. Per this Rule, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is the only authorized Investigative Service Provider (ISP) that the Military Service Components may use for background investigations. Contracted support must meet the intent of this Rule, DoD policy and the law.

Comment ID DOD-2014-OS-0009-0012:

• Video surveillance violates a person's “expectation of privacy.” It should be re-written to comply with the 5th Amendment. The procedure may be ruled unconstitutional as it currently stands.

Response: Signage and monitors are placed in highly visible entryways and foyers and inform individuals that video surveillance is being conducted. Video surveillance events occurring in public space for which individuals do not have reasonable expectations of privacy. Video surveillance does not intrude upon an individual's sphere of privacy; the use of video surveillance equipment (in designated programs) supports the law's intent for Line of Sight Supervision (LOSS) for individuals whose background checks have been initiated but not completed. Surveillance equipment is also used by staff trainers and managers as a training aid for staff observations and coaching.

• Procedures: Requirements for Criminal background checks. Foreign government background checks for employees working overseas has a 5th Amendment issue. How is an overseas employee challenge the validity of a foreign background check? There may be procedural and language barriers that prevent a fair opportunity to exonerate oneself.

Response: The current rule provides basic guidance regarding background checks for foreign nationals as they relate to DoD child care services programs. See DoD Instruction 5200.46 for more detailed guidance on procedures for foreign nationals.

Comment ID DOD-2014-OS-0009-00015: Of course children of any parentage should be protected from criminals and potential harm via their caretakers; however this cost will most likely be substantial. Please consider you taxpayers when making these choices that can seem frivolous at times.

Response: The costs of the investigations are borne by the DoD, and not by the individual or his or her employer or the State. When contracting for services, the contract must ensure it meets the intent of this Rule and the Crime Control Act of 1990. This Rule is a top priority for DoD to ensure the safety and well-being of all children in DoD child care services programs. By law, background checks are required for federal agencies that hire, contract for hire or use volunteers for the provision of care to children under the age of 18.

Comment ID DOD-2014-OS-0009-00016: The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act states there will be no additional financial expenditures required from the individual or employer while the regulatory act acknowledges potential indirect costs to small entities. If this proposed rule is passed, it would be beneficial to clearly outline what constitutes a small entity, what course of action, if any, can they take to avoid costs, and what kind of notice will they have if they are affected by this rule. When it comes to implementing the rule, if passed, there needs to be guidelines for how businesses that may incur costs can go about managing the financial change comfortably. As a DoD organization, can these small entities expect to qualify for additional funds to offset these costs (costs unspecified at this moment)? If this rule is passed, it should clearly state what the dollar figure will be, and a definite yes or no about eligibility of offsetting the expenses via government funds. If the proposed rule is passed, how immediate will the new procedures effect these small entities? The rule should be altered to include the time frame for implementing the policy and allow organizations to communicate if they need additional accommodations to be effective in its implementation.

Response: DoD has certified that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the costs for the investigation conducted pursuant to this rule are borne by the DoD, and not by the individual or his or her employer. Furthermore, any indirect costs incurred by small businesses as a result of this rule would be minimal.

Comment ID DOD-2014-OS-0009-00017: Not all agencies within individual states make their records available to commercial databases, nor does the FBI make its federal or state criminal records available to commercial services. In addition, the information in commercial databases may only be updated occasionally. Some states have databases that have not been updated to determine if the individual has any arrest history, therefore when a background check is being completed on a federal level, the record may not be current, and in turn, invalid information will be received on that individual. Most states allow criminals who have paid their dues, to erase their criminal records. Currently, 12 states expunge first-time criminal offenses after ex-convicts demonstrate a law-abiding lifestyle for 10 years.

Response: The rule requires multiple levels of investigation in order to ensure the most accurate information possible is captured during the investigation process. The DoD uses various data sources from federal, state and local authorities to obtain information on background investigations, credentialing, suitability determination and security clearances. The primary investigations include the Child Care National Agency Check and Inquiries; the FBI Identification Records check; the State Criminal History Repository Check; the state sex offender registry; the child abuse registry and an Installations Records Check (IRC Derogatory information is identified through this multi-tier investigative process). The Department remains committed in its efforts to ensure those who work with children meet the highest standards of conduct.

Comment ID DOD-2014-OS-0009-00018:

• Will background checks be conducted on the current staff on hand first? Will there be a set time frame to complete the background check? For example, each person attempting to gain employment has a 4-6 month waiting period, prior to a hire date? I know firsthand that some background checks can take a very long time ranging from 4 months to 12 months depending on the individual and their circumstances.

Response: This rule does not create a new system. It updates existing policy for background checks. The provision to work under LOSS allows DoD to employ individuals while the background checks are being completed.

• Has the DoD considered how criminal histories are not always current or may have mistakes? A person may have committed a crime, even serious in nature, but the individual may take a plea, and with 12 months good behavior it may be expunged from their record. Are there any plans or a step to assist with this process? Has the DoD considered using public Web site searches to assist with this process such as Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Twitter, etc. to gain more information on that particular individual? Using open source information may quickly display a person behaviors, likes, dislikes, etc., is a cheaper option, and may take only ten minutes depending on what the DoD discovers.

Response: DoD requirements outlined in this rule make use of available legal sources of investigative information to make determinations about individuals' suitability for employment in DoD child care services programs.

Comment ID DOD-2014-OS-0009-00022: I am in support of this proposed rule, but to accomplish greater safeguarding of children as intended, subcontractors should not be excluded as stated. DoD contracts are typically performed by subcontractors who actually perform work around the children, not the prime contractors.

Response: The exclusion of subcontractors has been deleted from the definition of contractors.

Comment ID DOD-2014-OS-0009-00024: The comment urges the DoD to update requirements for criminal background checks on individuals in DoD child care services programs in § 86.5, Responsibilities to align with the provisions recently enacted by the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014.

Response: We have carefully reviewed the requirements of the proposed rule and the requirements set forth in Public Law 113-186, the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014. This rule meets or exceeds the requirements of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014. We have determined that, while the language of the rule differs slightly from the language of Public Law 113-186, the databases searched yield the same information.

Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. This rule has been determined to be a significant regulatory action, although not economically significant, under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

DoD has reviewed the rule in accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, and compliance with the rule would require no additional expenditures by either public or private employers. In sum, the final rule does not mandate that State, local, and tribal governments adopt new, unfunded regulatory obligations. The costs of the investigations conducted pursuant to this rule are borne by the DoD, and not by the individual or his or her employer.

We certify this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the costs for the investigation conducted pursuant to this rule are borne by the DoD, and not by the individual or his or her employer. Furthermore, any indirect costs incurred by small businesses as a result of this rule would be minimal. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis as provided in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, is not required.

This rule imposes reporting and record keeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. These requirements have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget and assigned OMB Control Number 3206-0005, “Questionnaires for National Security Positions, Standard Form 86 (SF 86),” OMB Control Number 3206-0261, “SF 85 Questionnaire for Non-Sensitive Positions,” OMB Control Number 3206-0191, “SF 85P Questionnaire for Public Trust Positions,” and OMB Control Number 0704-0516, “Child Care Development Program (CDP) Criminal History.”

This rulemaking was analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”). It has been determined that it does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement. This rulemaking has no substantial effect on the States, or on the current Federal-State relationship, or on the current distribution of power and responsibilities among the various local officials. Nothing in this document preempts any State law or regulation. Therefore, DoD did not consult with State and local officials because it was not necessary.

Accordingly, 32 CFR part 86 is revised to read as follows:

The New Jersey Transit, who owns and operates the AMTRAK Bridge over Beach Thorofare and AMTRAK Bridge over Delaware River, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.733(d) and 117.716, respectively, to facilitate movement of trains during the 2015 Papal Visit to Philadelphia, PA.

Under the normal operating schedule for the AMTRAK Bridge over Beach Thorofare, New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway, mile 68.9, at Atlantic City, NJ; the bridge shall open on signal from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m.; from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m., open on signal from 20 minutes to 30 minutes after each hour and remain open for all waiting vessels; opening of the draw may be delayed for ten minutes except as provide in 33 CFR 117.31(b); However, if a train is moving toward the bridge and has crossed the home signal for the bridge before the signal requesting the opening of the bridge is given, that train may continue across the bridge and must clear the bridge interlocks before stopping. Under the normal operating schedule for the AMTRAK Bridge over Delaware River, mile 104.6, at Delair, NJ, the bridgeneed not open when there is a train in the bridge block approaching the bridge with the intention of crossing, or within five minutes of the known time of the passage of a scheduled passenger train; the opening of a bridge may not be delayed for more than 10 minutes, after the signal to open is given. The vertical clearances in the closed-to-navigation position of the AMTRAK Bridge over Beach Thorofare and AMTRAK Bridge over Delaware River are 5 feet and 49 feet, respectively, above mean high water.

Under this temporary deviation, the bridges will not be required to open on signal or within ten minutes of a signal from 5 a.m. on September 26, 2015, to 3 a.m. on September 28, 2015. Mariners requesting an opening shall provide at least one hour notice and may be required to adjust their voyage plan to transit through the bridge at a specified time. Beach Thorofare, New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway is used by a variety of vessels including small commercial fishing vessels, recreational vessels and tug and barge traffic. The Delaware River is used by a variety of vessels including deep draft ocean-going vessels, small commercial fishing vessels, recreational vessels and tug and barge traffic. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with commercial and recreational waterway users.

Vessels able to pass through the bridges in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridges will be able to open for emergencies and there is no alternate route for vessels unable to pass through the bridges in the closed position. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the change in operating schedules for these bridges so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impacts caused by this temporary deviation.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridges must return to their regular operating schedules immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

The New Jersey Department of Transportation, who owns and operates the S.R. 44 Bridge and Route 130 Bridge, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.729 and 117.741, respectively, to facilitate movement of vehicles during the 2015 Papal Visit to Philadelphia, PA.

Under the normal operating schedule for the S.R. 44 Bridge over Mantua Creek, mile 1.7, at Paulsboro, NJ and Route 130 Bridge over Raccoon Creek, mile 1.8, at Bridgeport, NJ; the bridges shall open on signal from May 1 through October 31, from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m.; and all other times, if at least four hours notice is given. The vertical clearances in the closed-to-navigation position of the S.R. 44 Bridge and Route 130 Bridge are 25 feet and 4 feet, respectively, above mean high water.

Under this temporary deviation, the bridges will be closed to navigation from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. each day starting September 26 through September 28, 2015, except for scheduled daily openings at 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. The bridges will operate per the normal operating schedules between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. Mantua Creek and Raccoon Creek are used by a variety of vessels including small commercial fishing vessels and recreational vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with commercial and recreational waterway users.

Vessels able to pass through the bridges in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridges will be able to open for emergencies and there is no alternate route for vessels unable to pass through the bridges in the closed position. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the change in operating schedules for these bridges so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impacts caused by this temporary deviation.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridges must return to their regular operating schedules immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

The Burlington County Bridge Commission, who owns and operates the Tacony-Palmyra (Route 73) Bridge over Delaware River and Burlington-Bristol (Route 413) Bridge over Delaware River, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.716 to facilitate movement of vehicles during the 2015 Papal Visit to Philadelphia, PA.

Under the normal operating schedule for Tacony-Palmyra (Route 73) Bridge over Delaware River, mile 107.2, between Tacony, PA and Palmyra, NJ and Burlington-Bristol (Route 413) Bridge over Delaware River, mile 117.8, between Burlington, NJ and Bristol, PA; opening of the bridge may not be delayed more than five minutes after the signal to open is given. The vertical clearances in the closed-to-navigation position of the Tacony-Palmyra (Route 73) Bridge over Delaware River and Burlington-Bristol (Route 413) Bridge over Delaware River are 53 feet and 62 feet, respectively, above mean high water.

Under this temporary deviation, the bridges will remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. on September 26 and September 27, 2015, except for scheduled daily openings at 12 noon and 6 p.m. Vessels signaling an intention to transit through both bridges during a scheduled opening will receive openings at both bridges. The bridges will operate as required per 33 CFR 117.716 from 9 p.m. on September 26 to 6 a.m. on September 27, 2015. The Delaware River is used by a variety of vessels including deep draft ocean-going vessels, small commercial fishing vessels, recreational vessels and tug and barge traffic. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with commercial and recreational waterway users.

Vessels able to pass through the bridges in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridges will be able to open for emergencies and there is no alternate route for vessels unable to pass through the bridges in the closed position. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the change in operating schedules for these bridges so that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impacts caused by this temporary deviation.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridges must return to their regular operating schedules immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

The September 8, 2014 Proposed Rule

On September 8, 2014, VA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register at 79 FR 53146, implementing VA's statutory authority to provide grants for the development of new assistive technologies for use in specially adapted housing for eligible veterans or servicemembers. Section 203 of the Veterans' Benefits Act of 2010 (the Act) amended chapter 21, title 38, United States Code, to establish the Specially Adapted Housing Assistive Technology Grant Program. Veterans' Benefits Act of 2010, Public Law 111-275, section 203, 124 Stat. 2874 (2010). The Act authorizes VA to provide grants of up to $200,000 per fiscal year, through September 30, 2016, to a “person or entity” for the development of specially adapted housing assistive technologies and limits to $1 million the aggregate amount of such grants VA may award in any fiscal year. Id.

The public comment period for the proposed rule closed on November 7, 2014. VA received one comment. The comment received on the proposed rule is discussed below. VA adopts without substantive change the proposed rule that implements the grant program to encourage the development of specially adapted housing assistive technologies. As explained below, however, VA is making one administrative correction to the proposed delegation of authority.

VA received one public comment on the proposed rule from an individual. The commenter expressed support for the proposed rule, but believed the application scoring criteria should be revised. The commenter explained that the prioritization of the criteria outlined in the proposed rule should be changed to reflect “those characteristics that make the project most likely to produce a successful and impactful result.” The commenter recommended changing the maximum point values that may be awarded for certain scoring criteria, with a feasible implementation plan being eligible for the highest number of maximum possible points and innovation and minority or economic status being eligible for the lowest number of maximum possible points. Additionally, the commenter proposed that “empirical research” should be added as a distinct scoring criterion utilized in the review process.

VA is publishing the scoring criteria set forth in proposed 38 CFR 36.4412(f) without change because VA believes that the criteria as proposed effectively carry out Congress's intent for the Grant program and satisfy the commenter's interest in successful and impactful results. Specifically, in regard to the legislative history of the Act, the preamble to the proposed rule explained that “House Report 111-109 also explained that there are many emerging technologies that could improve home adaptions or otherwise enhance a veteran or servicemember's ability to live independently, such as voice-recognition and voice-command operations, living environment controls, and adaptive feeding equipment.” 79 FR 53147. In its scoring criteria, VA provided that a new advancement's innovation and ability to meet an unmet need may be awarded the maximum possible points because it understood a central goal of the law to be the development of original, potentially groundbreaking technologies. VA also prioritized a new advancement's promotion of independent living in the scoring criteria based on Congress's statement that emerging technologies (as supported through this Grant program) could enhance the ability for veterans or servicemembers to live independently. See 79 FR 53148. Additionally, to ensure that these advancements may be feasibly developed and effectively utilized by eligible individuals, VA's proposed scoring criteria also include a description of the new assistive technology's concept, size, and scope and an implementation plan for bringing the technology to the marketplace. See id. Accordingly, VA is maintaining its scoring criteria as set forth in the proposed rule because this prioritization effectively carries out congressional intent while addressing the commenter's stated interest in successful and impactful results.

Additionally, VA is publishing the scoring criteria set forth in proposed 38 CFR 36.4412(f) without change because the criteria provide VA flexibility to ensure that grant awards are made based on the identified priorities and/or needs of veterans and VA at the time the Notice of Funds Availability (NoFA) is published. See 79 FR 53147, 53148. Specifically, in setting out the scoring criteria and maximum points that may be awarded for each criterion, VA explained that “the scoring framework would allow the Secretary to make awards based on priorities of veterans and VA, while also ensuring that taxpayer funds are used responsibly.” 79 FR 53148. As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, while the regulation text sets forth the maximum number of points that may be awarded based on any one criterion, each NoFA would explain the specific scoring priorities for that grant application cycle. Id. This change in priorities would not introduce new scoring criteria, but would instead help technology grant applicants understand how the scores will be weighted and provide them an opportunity to tailor their responses accordingly. Id.

The preamble to the proposed rule also provides an example to illustrate VA's flexibility to emphasize certain criterion in each NoFA. It explains that VA might emphasize in one grant cycle the need for innovation, and as a result, explain in the NoFA that innovation will be a top priority. A technology grant applicant would then know to concentrate on how innovative its product would be. In reviewing the application, the Secretary might award all 50 allowable points to the technology grant applicant who best satisfies that criterion. In the next grant cycle, the Secretary might determine that a particular need has gone unmet among eligible individuals who are adapting their homes. The Secretary might choose to place more emphasis on meeting that need than on general innovation. As a result, the published NoFA for that grant cycle would explain the Secretary's new priorities. A technology grant applicant would then know that its application would have more success if it were to focus on how the product would meet the need. When reviewing applications, the Secretary could choose to award all 50 points for that criterion, while only scoring the most innovative product 30 points. Id. Accordingly, VA believes this flexibility to weigh criteria based on the identified needs and priorities of veterans and VA at the time a NoFA is published will ensure grant awards successfully carry out program goals and positively impact eligible individuals.

Finally, the commenter suggested adding “empirical research” as a criterion to be evaluated when scoring grant applications. VA understands empirical research to be defined as “originating in or based on observation or experience” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical). VA's scoring criteria anticipate VA's consideration of empirical research in evaluating applications and determining points awarded for each criterion. For example, an application for a new assistive technology may utilize empirical research surrounding currently-available technologies on the market to demonstrate the advancement's level of innovation. Or, a successful description of how the new advancement is specifically designed to promote the ability of eligible individuals to live independently may utilize empirical research to explain, for example, the most common disabilities among eligible individuals, the critical factors that affect an eligible individual's ability to live independently, and how the new assistive technology may enable individuals to overcome barriers to independent living. VA will consider the presence of empirical research in its review of applications and determination of points to be awarded. As empirical research may be utilized to support applications and impact application scoring under the existing criteria, it does not need to be added as a stand-alone factor for evaluation.

The proposed rule included a delegation of authority to various officials in the Department. The title of the Deputy Under Secretary for Economic Opportunity was incorrectly listed as the Deputy Under Secretary for Economic Development. This rule corrects the error. The change is only for administrative accuracy and has no substantive effect on the rule.

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

The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this regulatory action have been examined, and it has been determined to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 because it is likely to result in a rule that may raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in Executive Orders 12866 or 13563. VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at http://www.regulations.gov, usually within 48 hours after the rulemaking document is published. Additionally, a copy of the rulemaking and its impact analysis are available on VA's Web site at http://www.va.gov/orpm/, by following the link for “VA Regulations Published from FY 2004 Through Fiscal Year to Date.”

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. There will be no significant economic impact on any small entities because grant applicants are not required to provide matching funds to receive the maximum grant amount of $200,000. The assistive technology grant program will not impact a substantial number of small entities because VA may only award a maximum of $1 million in aggregate grant funds per fiscal year, and VA's authority to award these grants expires September 30, 2016. On this basis, the Secretary certifies that the 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. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.

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

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that VA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a), an agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(1) and (3)(vi).

This final rule will impose the following new information collection requirements. Section 36.4412(d) of title 38 CFR will require applicants for an SAH Assistive Technology grant to submit VA Form 26-0967, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion,” and to provide statements addressing the scoring criteria for grant awards. The information provided under this collection of information is necessary for a complete SAH Assistive Technology grant application. The information will be used by VA in deciding whether an applicant meets the requirements and satisfies the scoring criteria for award of an SAH Assistive Technology grant under 38 U.S.C. 2108. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (at 44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), VA has submitted these information collections to OMB for its review. OMB approved these new information collection requirements associated with the final rule and assigned OMB control number 2900-0821.

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program numbers and titles for the programs affected by this document are 64.106, Specially Adapted Housing for Disabled Veterans and 64.118, Veterans Housing—Direct Loans for Certain Disabled Veterans.

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 September 11, 2015, for publication.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, VA amends 38 CFR part 36, subpart C to read as follows:

On July 1, 2015, the Judicial Officer Department published for comment proposed revisions to the rules of practice before the Judicial Officer for proceedings relative to debarment from contracting (80 FR 37565-7). The period for comments closed on July 31, 2015, and no comments were received. The Judicial Officer has made no further revisions to the original proposed rules, which are adopted as final. The new rules completely replace the former rules of 39 CFR part 957.

The rules of practice in proceedings relative to debarment from contracting are set forth in 39 CFR part 957. This authority is delegated by the Postmaster General. The rules are being changed to effectuate the Postal Service's present debarment procedures, at 39 CFR part 601, and the Judicial Officer's role in those procedures.

In 2007, the Postal Service changed its procurement regulations regarding suspension and debarment from contracting. See 72 FR 58252 (October 15, 2007). Whereas prior to that change, the Judicial Officer conducted hearings and rendered final agency decisions regarding suspension and debarment from contracting, the revised procurement regulations at 39 CFR 601.113 eliminated any role of the Judicial Officer from suspensions, and reserved final agency action regarding debarments to the Vice President, Supply Management. The remaining role of the Judicial Officer relative to debarment from contracting is set forth in paragraphs (g)(2) and (h)(2) of § 601.113. Those paragraphs provide that the Vice President, Supply Management, may request the Judicial Officer to conduct fact-finding hearings to resolve questions of material facts involving a debarment, and will consider those findings when deciding the matter. Under paragraph (h)(2) of § 601.113, fact-finding hearings will be governed by rules of procedure promulgated by the Judicial Officer. These new rules of procedure satisfy that requirement.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the Postal Service revises 39 CFR part 957 to read as follows:

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

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0574 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before November 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-2014-0574, 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 February 11, 2015 (80 FR 7559) (FRL-9921-94), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 4E8297) by IR-4, IR-4 Project Headquarters, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Suite 201 W, 500 College Road East, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.479 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide halosulfuron-methyl, methyl 5-[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidiny)amino] carbonylaminosulfonyl]-3-chloro-1-methyl-1H-pyrazole-4-carboxylate, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the raw agricultural commodities: Fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 0.05 parts per million (ppm), and fruit, small vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F at 0.05 ppm (associated with a regional registration). That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by the Canyon Group, c/o Gowan Company, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. No comments were received on the notice of filing.

Based upon available data, EPA is establishing tolerances as requested.

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

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

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

With repeated dosing, the available data on halosulfuron-methyl did not demonstrate a target organ or tissue in any of the test animals. Reduction in body weight was seen in the 90-day and 1-year oral toxicity studies in dogs. Reduced body weights were also seen in rat studies at higher dose levels than those seen in dogs. An effect on the hematological parameters was detected in the dog studies, but the magnitude of changes was slight and the effect was considered to be marginal. Thus, the slight hematological changes were not considered to be adverse.

In the prenatal developmental toxicity study in rats, increases in resorptions, soft tissue (dilation of the lateral ventricles) and skeletal variations, and decreases in body weights were seen in the fetuses compared to clinical signs and decreases in body weights and food consumption in the maternal animals at a similar dose level. In the rabbit developmental toxicity study, increases in resorptions and post-implantation losses and decreases in mean litter size were observed in the presence of decreases in body weight and food consumption in maternal animals. The fetal effects seen in developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits represented a qualitative increase in susceptibility. However, a clear no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) for these effects was established in both rat and rabbit developmental toxicity studies. No quantitative susceptibility was found in studies following pre-and/or post-natal exposures. Halosulfuron-methyl did not produce any effects on reproductive parameters in the 2-generation reproduction study in rats. No neurotoxic effects were observed in the acute or subchronic neurotoxicity studies up to 2,000 mg/kg or 760 mg/kg/day, respectively. In addition, no adverse effect was found in a 21-day dermal toxicity study at doses up to the limit dose (1,000 mg/kg/day).

Halosulfuron-methyl is negative for mutagenicity in a battery of genotoxicity studies and is classified as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” based on lack of evidence for carcinogenicity in mice and rats following long-term dietary administration.

Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by halosulfuron-methyl as well as the NOAEL and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document “Halosulfuron-Methyl. Human Health Risk Assessment for a Proposed Use on Pome Fruit Crop Group 11-10 and Small Fruit Vine Climbing Subgroup, Except Fuzzy Kiwifruit, Subgroup 13-07F” at page 28 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0574.

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

A summary of the toxicological endpoints for halosulfuron used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III. B. of the final rule published in the Federal Register of December 3, 2012 (77 FR 71555) (FRL-9370-6). However, there is one change to the prior toxicity endpoint and point of departure selections for halosulfuron-methyl discussed in the 2012 document. The previous toxicity endpoint for dermal exposure assessments was based on the results of a 21-day dermal toxicity study, where the no observed effect level (NOEL) and lowest observed effect level (LOEL) were established at 100 and 1,000 mg/kg/day, respectively. The LOEL was based on “total body weight gains in males.” However, following a reevaluation of this study according to the current evaluation standard, there was only 4% reduction in absolute body weight in the affected 1,000 mg/kg/day males. This reduction was not considered to be adverse and no other adverse effect was reported in this study. No LOAEL could be established, and the NOAEL was 1,000 mg/kg/day. Based on this re-evaluation, halosulfuron-methyl did not cause adverse effects at the limit dose (1,000 mg/kg/day), and no toxicity endpoint could be established for the dermal exposure scenario. In addition, no quantitative susceptibility was found in studies following pre-and/or post-natal exposures. Hence, no dermal exposure assessment was necessary.

1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to halosulfuron-methyl, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing halosulfuron-methyl tolerances in 40 CFR 180.479. EPA assessed dietary exposures from halosulfuron-methyl in food as follows:

i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.

Such effects were identified for halosulfuron-methyl. Exposure and risk assessments were conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID). This software uses 2003-2008 food consumption data from the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level residues and 100 percent crop treated (PCT) for all commodities.

ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA NHANES/WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level residues and 100 PCT for all commodities.

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

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

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

Based on the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of halosulfuron-methyl for acute exposures are estimated to be 59.2 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.065 ppb for ground water and for chronic exposures are estimated to be 59.2 ppb for surface water and 0.065 ppb for ground water.

Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 59.2 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 59.2 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).

Halosulfuron-methyl is currently registered for use by residential handlers on residential turf. EPA re-assessed residential exposure for aggregate risk assessment reflecting the removal of the dermal POD. EPA assessed short-term (1-30 days) exposure to halosulfuron-methyl for residential handlers (inhalation exposure) and children 1 to < 2 years old (post-application incidental oral exposures).

The residential exposure scenario used in the adult aggregate assessment reflects inhalation exposure from mixing/loading/applying halosulfuron-methyl via backpack sprayer or manually pressurized handwand to turf.

The residential exposure scenario used in the children 1 to <2 years old aggregate assessment reflects hand-to-mouth incidental oral exposures from post-application exposure to treated turf.

Intermediate-term exposures are not likely because of the intermittent nature of applications by homeowners.

Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/trac6a05.pdf.

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

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

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

2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There was no quantitative evidence of increased susceptibility following pre- and/or post-natal exposure to halosulfuron-methyl. Qualitative susceptibility was seen in the prenatal developmental toxicity study in rats and in rabbits; however, this qualitative susceptibility was of low concern because (1) in both studies, there were clear NOAELs/LOAELs for developmental and maternal toxicities; (2) the developmental effects were seen in the presence of maternal toxicity; and (3) the effects were only seen at the high dose levels. In rats, the developmental effects were seen at a dose (750 mg/kg/day) which was approaching the limit-dose (1,000 mg/kg/day). Furthermore, the PODs for risk assessment are protective of the effects which occur at high doses.

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

i. The toxicity database for halosulfuron-methyl is considered complete.

ii. There is no indication that halosulfuron-methyl is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.

iii. There was no quantitative evidence of increased susceptibility following pre- and/or post-natal exposure and the qualitative susceptibility observed in the developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits was of low concern for the reasons outlined in section III.D.2.

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

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

1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to halosulfuron-methyl will occupy <1% of the aPAD for females 13-49 years old, the only population group of concern.

2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to halosulfuron-methyl from food and water will utilize 5.7% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population subgroup receiving the greatest exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of halosulfuron-methyl is not expected.

3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level).

Halosulfuron-methyl is currently registered for uses that could result in short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with short-term residential exposures to halosulfuron-methyl.

Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 25,000 for adults and 1,800 for children 1 to < 2 years old. Because EPA's level of concern for halosulfuron-methyl is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.

4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level).

An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however, halosulfuron-methyl is not registered for any use patterns that would result in intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no further assessment of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for halosulfuron-methyl.

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

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

Adequate enforcement methodology (gas chromatography (GC) thermionic-specific detection (TSD, nitrogen specific)) is available to enforce the tolerance expression.

The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address: [email protected].

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

The Codex has not established a MRL for halosulfuron-methyl for any of the crops covered by this Final Rule.

Therefore, a tolerance is established for residues of halosulfuron-methyl, methyl 5-[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidiny)amino] carbonylaminosulfonyl]-3-chloro-1-methyl-1H-pyrazole-4-carboxylate, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 0.05 ppm, and a tolerance with regional registration is established for fruit, small vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F at 0.05 ppm. In addition, the existing tolerance for the commodity “Apple” in paragraph (a)(2) of § 180.479 is removed since it is covered by the newly established fruit, pome, group 11-10 tolerance.

This action establishes tolerances 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 tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), do not apply.

This 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 NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such communities will be published in the Federal Register.

In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.

Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.

National Environmental Policy Act. This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.

Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless remedial action takes place.

Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order (R&O), FCC 15-108, MD Docket No. 15-121, adopted on September 1, 2015 and released on September 2, 2015.

1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA),1 the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) relating to this Report and Order. The FRFA is contained towards the end of this document.

2. This document does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

3. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

4. This Report and Order adopts a schedule of regulatory fees to assess and collect $339,844,000 in regulatory fees for Fiscal Year (FY) 2015, pursuant to Section 9 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act or Communications Act) and the Commission's FY 2015 Appropriation.2 The schedule of regulatory fees for FY 2015 adopted here is attached in Table C. These regulatory fees are due in September 2015.

5. The FY 2015 regulatory fees are based on the proposals in the FY 2015 NPRM, 3 considered in light of the comments received and Commission analysis. The FY 2015 regulatory fee schedule includes the following noteworthy changes from prior years: (1) A reduction in regulatory fees for the submarine cable/terrestrial and satellite bearer circuit (IBC) category relative to other fee categories in the International Bureau; (2) the first fee rate for Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) as a subcategory of the cable television and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) regulatory fee category; (3) the first fee rate for toll free numbers; and (4) the elimination of the regulatory fee component of two fee categories: amateur radio Vanity Call Signs and General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS).4 In addition, for FY 2015, in calculating the fee schedule, the Commission also reallocated four International Bureau full time employees (FTEs) 5 from direct to indirect.

6. Congress adopted a regulatory fee schedule in 1993 6 and authorized the Commission to assess and collect annual regulatory fees pursuant to the schedule, as amended by the Commission.7 As a result, the Commission annually reviews the regulatory fee schedule, proposes changes to the schedule to reflect changes in the amount of its appropriation, and proposes increases or decrease to the schedule of regulatory fees.8 The Commission makes changes to the regulatory fee schedule “if the Commission determines that the schedule requires amendment to comply with the requirements” 9 of section 9(b)(1)(A) of the Act.10 The Commission may also add, delete, or reclassify services in the fee schedule to reflect additions, deletions, or changes in the nature of its services “as a consequence of Commission rulemaking proceedings or changes in law.” Thus, for each fiscal year, the proposed fee schedule in the annual Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) will reflect changes in the amount appropriated for the performance of the FCC's regulatory activities, changes in the industries represented by the regulatory fee payers, changes in Commission FTE levels, and any other issues of relevance to the proposed fee schedule.11 After receipt and review of comments, the Commission issues a Report and Order adopting the fee schedule for the fiscal year and sets out the procedures for payment of fees.

7. The Commission calculates the fees by first determining the FTE number of employees performing the regulatory activities specified in section 9(a), “adjusted to take into account factors that are reasonably related to the benefits provided to the payor of the fee by the Commission's activities . . . .” 12 FTEs are categorized as “direct” if they are performing regulatory activities in one of the “core” bureaus, i.e., the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Media Bureau, Wireline Competition Bureau, and part of the International Bureau. All other FTEs are considered “indirect.” 13 The total FTEs for each fee category is calculated by counting the number of direct FTEs in the core bureau that regulates that category, plus a proportional allocation of indirect FTEs. Next, the Commission allocates the total amount to be collected among the various regulatory fee categories. This allocation is based on the number of FTEs assigned to work in each regulatory fee category. Each regulatee within a fee category pays its proportionate share based on an objective measure, e.g., revenues, number of subscribers, or licenses.14

8. As part of its annual review, the Commission regularly seeks to improve its regulatory fee analysis.15 For example, in the FY 2013 Report and Order, the Commission adopted updated FTE allocations to more accurately reflect the number of FTEs working on regulation and oversight of the regulatees in the various fee categories,16 combined the UHF and VHF television stations into one regulatory fee category,17 and created a fee category to include IPTV.18 Subsequently, in the FY 2014 Report and Order and FNPRM, the Commission adopted a new fee category for toll free numbers,19 increased the de minimis threshold,20 and eliminated several categories from the regulatory fee schedule.21 Earlier this year, in our FY 2015 Fee Reform Report and Order, we added a subcategory for DBS providers in the cable television and IPTV regulatory fee category.22

9. In our FY 2015 NPRM, we proposed to collect $339,844,000 in regulatory fees and included a detailed, proposed fee schedule. We also sought comment on (1) a proposal revising the apportionment between the submarine cable/terrestrial and satellite bearer circuits fee category and the space station/earth station fee category; (2) revising an apportionment of regulatory fees among broadcasters; (3) a request for relief from regulatory fee assessments for radio stations in Puerto Rico filed by the Puerto Rico Broadcasters Association (PRBA); 23 (4) raising earth station regulatory fees relative to space station fees; 24 (5) a new regulatory fee for toll free numbers; (6) a new regulatory fee for DBS (as a subcategory in the cable television and IPTV regulatory fee category); and (7) whether certain FTEs should be allocated as direct instead of indirect.25 We received 13 comments and eight reply comments. The list of commenters is attached in Table A.

10. In this Report and Order, we adopt a regulatory fee schedule for FY 2015, pursuant to Section 9 of the Communications Act and our FY 2015 appropriation statute in order to collect $339,844,000 in regulatory fees.26 Of this amount, we project approximately $18.56 million (5.45 percent of the total FTE allocation) in fees from the International Bureau regulatees; 27 $69.07 million (20.28 percent of the total FTE allocation) in fees from the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau regulatees; 28 $132.81 million (38.99 percent of the total FTE allocation) from Wireline Competition Bureau regulatees; 29 and $120.15 million (35.28 percent of the total FTE allocation) from the Media Bureau regulatees.30 These regulatory fees are due in September 2015. The schedule of regulatory fees for FY 2015 adopted here is attached as Table C.

11. In the FY 2014 Report and Order and FNPRM,31 we adopted a regulatory fee category for each toll free number managed by a RespOrg.32 In the FY 2015 NPRM, we sought comment on a regulatory fee of 12 cents per toll free number.33 In this Report and Order, we adopt the proposed fee of 12 cents per toll free number.

12. In the FY 2014 Report and Order and FNPRM, we concluded that the regulatory fee assessment for the submarine cable/terrestrial and satellite bearer circuits fee category did not fairly take into account the Commission's minimal oversight and regulation of the international bearer circuit (IBC) industry. Accordingly, we reduced the total regulatory fee apportionment for submarine cable/terrestrial and satellite bearer circuits by five percent and stated that we would revisit the issue to determine if additional adjustment is warranted.34 Subsequently, in the FY 2015 NPRM, we sought comment on further reducing the regulatory fee allocation for the submarine cable/terrestrial and satellite bearer circuit fee category.35 In particular, we observed that after the initial licensing process, the regulatory activity concerning submarine cable/terrestrial and satellite bearer circuit systems is primarily limited to reviewing the Circuit Capacity Reports 36 and quarterly reports filed by licensees.37 Based on our tentative conclusion that the fee remained excessive relative to the minimal Commission oversight and regulation of this industry, we proposed another five percent decrease in fees.38

13. NASCA, representing submarine cable operators,39 argues that the proposed fee remains excessive because the industry would be responsible for 27.6 percent of all International Bureau regulatory fees.40 Commenters also contend that the apportionment of regulatory fees for submarine cable operators and terrestrial and satellite bearer circuits remains too high due to the small number of FTEs working on those services.41 Some commenters observe as well that the high regulatory fees imposed on the submarine cable operators can place the United States at a competitive disadvantage because Canada and Mexico have much lower fees and the submarine cable industry may choose to land new cables in those countries instead.42 Commenters suggest that this could pose national security issues if the submarine cable operators choose to build out in Canada and Mexico, because those facilities would not be subject to the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, commonly known as CALEA.43 EchoStar contends that we have not supported our proposal to reduce the IBC fees with sufficient facts.44

14. In 2009, the Commission adopted a new regulatory fee methodology for submarine cable based on a proposal by a large group of submarine cable operators.45 Under this methodology, after we apportion the IBC revenue requirement between the terrestrial and satellite facilities and submarine cable, we assess the submarine cable systems on a per cable landing license basis, with higher fees for larger systems and lower fees for smaller systems (the regulatory fees for terrestrial and satellite facilities are still assessed on a per bearer circuit basis).46 The regulatory fees that are now paid by the submarine cable operators cover the services provided to common carriers using the submarine cable circuits in addition to the services that the International Bureau provides to submarine cable operators. The International Bureau's regulatory activity concerning submarine cable includes licensing,47 reviewing the Circuit Capacity Reports 48 and filed quarterly reports.49 In addition, all International Bureau services provided to common carriers using the submarine cable circuits, such as benchmarks enforcement,50 protection from anticompetitive actions by foreign carriers, foreign ownership rulings (Petitions for Declaratory Rulings, or PDRs), section 214 authorizations, and bilateral and multilateral negotiations and representation of U.S. interests at international organizations, are all provided by the International Bureau on behalf of the common carriers using submarine cable circuits. Upon this further analysis, we conclude that our previous estimate of two FTEs working on IBC issues discussed in FY 2014 Report and Order, did not take these issues into account.51 Nevertheless, as we have discussed previously in the FY 2013 NPRM, FY 2014 NPRM, and the FY 2015 NPRM, 52 the oversight and regulation of the IBC industry may warrant additional adjustment to the fee allocation. For the reasons discussed above, we reduce the regulatory fee apportionment for submarine cable/terrestrial and satellite bearer circuits by 7.5 percent to more accurately reflect the regulation and oversight for the industry.53 This analysis reflects both the direct work on submarine cable/terrestrial and satellite bearer circuit issues and other common carrier issues by International Bureau FTEs and the indirect FTEs that devote their time to International Bureau regulatees as a whole. We find that this decrease in the regulatory fees paid by IBCs more accurately reflects the level of regulation and oversight for this industry. Also, we reject the speculation that failure to reduce regulatory fees as much as the submarine cable operators might prefer could lead to a change in the cable landing locations. We also reject EchoStar's statement that our proposal lacked factual support. As noted above, the regulatory oversight of this fee category has been explained in detail in this, and prior proceedings,54 and has been the subject of comments by submarine cable operators for a number of years.

15. In the FY 2014 NPRM, the Commission recognized that the International Bureau's oversight and regulation of the satellite industry involves FTEs working on legal, technical, and policy issues pertaining to both space station and earth station operations and is therefore interdependent to some degree.55 For that reason, we sought comment on whether we should increase the earth station regulatory fee allocation in order to reflect more appropriately the number of FTEs devoted to the regulation and oversight of the earth station portion of the satellite industry.56 In the FY 2014 regulatory fee proceeding, we increased the regulatory fees paid by earth station licensees by approximately 7.5 percent based on our analysis and review of the record.57

16. In the FY 2015 NPRM, we sought comment on whether to raise the earth station regulatory fees again.58 We find, however, that this issue requires further analysis. In particular, due to comments suggesting that we adopt different regulatory fees for different types of earth stations and an ongoing proceeding concerning Part 25 (Satellite Communications) of the Commission's rules which may affect the distribution of FTE work, we plan to further examine and consider this issue for FY 2016.59 In doing so, we intend to seek comment on EchoStar's proposal to assess different levels of regulatory fees on different types of earth station licenses.60

17. As explained above in paragraph five, we calculate regulatory fees by classifying FTEs either as direct or indirect. FTEs classified as direct are further associated with one of the core bureaus. The Commission now updates FTE allocations on an annual basis to more accurately reflect the number of FTEs working on regulation and oversight of the regulatees in the various fee categories.61 The Commission has also previously determined that some of the International Bureau FTEs should be considered indirect instead of direct.62 We find that apart from the unique nature of the International Bureau FTEs, the work of all the FTEs in a core bureau contributes to the cost of regulating and overseeing the licensees of that bureau. Therefore, we may reasonably expect that the work of the FTEs in the core bureaus would remain focused on the industry segment regulated by each of those bureaus. The work of the FTEs in the remaining (i.e., indirect) bureaus and offices benefits the Commission and the telecommunications industry and is not specifically focused on the licensees of a particular core bureau. Given the significant implications of reassignment of FTEs in our fee calculation, we make changes to FTE classifications only after performing considerable analysis and finding the clearest case for reassignment.63

18. SIA and EchoStar propose that we consider FTEs working in certain divisions of the Enforcement Bureau and the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau and the Office of Engineering & Technology (i.e., indirect FTEs) as direct FTEs, associated with a core bureau for purposes of regulatory fee calculation.64 SIA contends that the work in the Market Disputes Resolution Division “is limited to complaints against common carriers and pole attachment disputes” 65 and the “Telecommunications Consumers Division focuses on protecting consumers from fraudulent, misleading, and other harmful practices involving telecommunications, such as slamming.” 66 SIA's description of these two Enforcement Bureau divisions underestimates the range of issues that they investigate.67 EchoStar argues that the Office of Engineering & Technology's regulatory work suggests that “no more than 7 percent of the applicable FTEs for the OET should be allocated to space-related IB licensees.” 68 This proposal raised by SIA and EchoStar involves more than an analysis of two divisions and one office but rather would require an assessment of how all work done by FTEs in a bureau or office not classified as a core bureau could be associated with the work of a core bureau, such that additional FTEs could be allocated to the core bureau. However, FTEs are assigned as indirect in our regulatory fee calculation where the FTEs work on a variety of issues that cannot be attributed to one particular type of industry or regulatee at this time.

19. The Enforcement Bureau and Consumer & Governmental Affairs FTEs and other indirect FTEs, such as those in the Office of Engineering & Technology, work on a wide range of matters, not all directly assignable to a particular core bureau. We recognize that before the Enforcement Bureau was created, the core bureaus each had an enforcement division and those FTEs would have been assigned to those core bureaus. Currently, however, most enforcement activity is consolidated into the Enforcement Bureau, therefore the FTEs may work on a range of issues and many of their investigations cannot be assigned to a specific core bureau, e.g., investigations that involve more than one service. While SIA suggests that we might track informal complaints filed in the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau and associate them with a core licensing bureau based on the number of informal complaints in each category over a certain time period,69 we find that this would not be feasible at this time because the types of informal complaints can vary considerably and often cover areas that are not specifically correlated with one core bureau, e.g., billing issues for bundled services. For these reasons, we conclude that reallocating indirect FTEs as direct as suggested by EchoStar and SIA is not feasible at this time. However, we will continue to analyze this issue in future regulatory fee proceedings.

20. NAB notes that the FTEs in the Media Bureau who work on issues pertaining to the upcoming spectrum incentive auction to repurpose broadcast television spectrum to wireless use should be reallocated to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau for regulatory fee purposes.70 SIA asks us to “re-evaluate whether it is appropriate to exclude auction FTEs in assessing direct costs.” 71 FTE time devoted to developing and implementing the upcoming spectrum incentive auction-direct and indirect costs-is not included in the calculation of fees and is not offset by the collection of regulatory fees. Instead, time devoted to developing and implementing the incentive auction is tracked separately from other work performed by Media Bureau and other FTEs and is offset by the auction proceeds that the Commission is permitted to retain pursuant to section 309(j)(8) of the Communications Act and the Commission's annual appropriation statute.72 Thus, the Commission is unable, as a legal matter, to implement these proposals.

21. In the FY 2015 NPRM, we sought comment on setting the initial rate for DBS regulatory fees, as a subset of the cable television and IPTV category, at 12 cents per year, or one cent per month.73 Several commenters contend that we should require DBS operators to pay the same rate as cable television and IPTV.74 DBS commenters contend that paying the same rate as cable television/IPTV would cause “rate shock” and if we adopt a fee it should be 12 cents as proposed.75

22. When adopting the new regulatory fee subcategory for DBS within the cable and IPTV category, we determined a variety of regulatory developments have increased the amount of regulatory activity by the Media Bureau FTEs involving regulation and oversight of MVPDs, including DBS providers.76 For example, DBS providers (and cable television operators) are permitted to file program access complaints77 and complaints seeking relief under the retransmission consent good faith rules.78 In addition, DBS providers are subject to MVPD requirements such as those pertaining to program carriage 79 and the requirement to negotiate retransmission consent in good faith.80 More recently, the Commission adopted a host of requirements that apply to all MVPDs and thus equally apply to DBS providers as part of its implementation of the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act (CALM Act),81 the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA),82 as well as the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act (STELA) Reauthorization Act of 2014 (STELAR).83 Moreover, we recognize that FY 2015 would be the first time the Commission would be applying this regulatory fee subcategory for DBS. Thus, for the above reasons, we find that for FY 2015 the proposed rate of 12 cents per subscriber per year is a sensible fee supported by data and analysis.84 In the FY 2016 regulatory fee proceeding, we will update this rate for future years, based on relevant information, as necessary for ensuring an appropriate level of regulatory parity and considering the resources dedicated to this new regulatory fee subcategory.85

23. Aviation Ground Licenses. In the FY 2015 NPRM, we proposed an increase in regulatory fees for aviation ground licenses. Commenters contend that we have proposed an unjustified and disproportionate fee increase for aviation ground licensees.86 The Aviation Joint Commenters disagree with our contention that the payment units should be adjusted and they observe that we failed to explain why the revenue requirement was increased.87 These commenters observe that despite no increase in regulation of this industry, the Commission has significantly increased the regulatory fees in FY 2014 and FY 2015.88 We agree with the Aviation Joint Commenters and, after reviewing additional information, have adjusted the payment units and rate accordingly based on current fiscal year renewals.

24. Satellite. Several commenters have raised issues pertaining to the proposed space station fees. SIA and EchoStar object to the proposed increase in fees, contending that we should cap any increases at 7.5 percent.89 These commenters argue that we should adopt the same cap we adopted for FY 2013. In FY 2013, the 7.5% cap was instituted to address the initial changes in the FTE allocations (not fee rate changes resulting from changes in the unit counts) as a result of GAO recommendations.90 Such FTE allocation changes could have caused some regulatory fee rates to increase dramatically. To address this issue, the Commission capped the fee rate increase to 7.5% from the prior year. In the current proceeding, some satellite commenters requested that the Commission adopt a 7.5% cap on FY 2015 regulatory fee increases as the Commission did in FY 2013 with respect to the Non-Geostationary Space Station fee category. Although the circumstances in which we instituted the cap in FY 2013 are different than now, any discussion of imposing a cap at this time is not necessary because the satellite fee rate in the FY 2015 Report and Order is nearly the same or slightly lower than in FY 2014. We therefore decline to adopt a cap in this instance.

25. Intelsat asks that we take satellite application fees 91 into consideration in calculating our regulatory fees.92 We are required to assess and collect $339,844,000 in regulatory fees for FY 2015, pursuant to Section 9 of the Communications Act and the Commission's FY 2015 Appropriation.93 Thus, we are not able to collect less than mandated by Congress in order to take into account section 8 application fees, as Intelsat requests.

26. In addition, Intelsat argues that U.S.-licensed satellite operators should not have to subsidize the non-U.S.-licensed satellite operators' ability to serve the U.S. market.94 We have sought comment previously on this issue because the number of International Bureau FTEs working on non-U.S.-licensed space stations increases the regulatory fees for the International Bureau regulatees.95 We also note that non-U.S.-licensed space stations that have been granted access to the U.S. market will eventually communicate with earth stations in the United States, and therefore aspects of the interrelated communications system are apportioned to earth station licensees when accounting for FTE time spent processing requests to access the non-U.S. licensed space station. We conclude that due to: (i) The time spent by International Bureau FTEs in working on these issues; and (ii) the significant number of requests to access the U.S. market by non-U.S.-licensed space stations, the FTEs working on petitions or other matters involving non-U.S.-licensed space stations should be removed from the regulatory fee assessments for U.S.-licensed space stations and considered indirect for regulatory fee purposes. Non-U.S.-licensed space stations granted access to the market in the United States provide a variety of services. Attributing such FTE work as indirect appropriately attributes the regulatory fee burden to the wider telecommunications industry that benefits from such grants of market access. We have reviewed the number of FTEs working on the non-U.S.-licensed space stations and have determined that approximately four FTEs are devoted to this work at this time, therefore, we are reallocating four International Bureau FTEs as indirect FTEs for regulatory fee purposes.96

This document announces that, on August 27, 2015, OMB approved certain information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Incentive Auction Report and Order, FCC 14-50, published at 79 FR 48442, August 15, 2014. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1180. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the effective date of these information collection requirements.

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on August 27, 2015, for the new information collection requirements contained in the Commission's rules at 47 CFR 27.14(k), 27.14(t)(6), 27.17(c), 27.19(b), 27.19(c), 74.602(h)(5)(ii), 74.602(h)(5)(iii). Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1180.

The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.

The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:

OMB Control Number: 3060-1180.

OMB Approval Date: August 27, 2015.

OMB Expiration Date: August 31, 2018.

Title: Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions.

Form Number: N/A.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, state, local, or tribal government and not for profit institutions.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 378 respondents and 378 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: .5 hours-2 hours.

Frequency of Response: One-time and on occasion reporting requirements, twice within 12 years reporting requirement, 6, 10 and 12-years reporting requirements and third party disclosure requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for these collections are contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 325(b), 332, 336(f), 338, 339, 340, 399b, 403, 534, 535, 1404, 1452, and 1454 of the Communications Act of 1934.

Total Annual Burden: 581 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No cost.

Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

Needs and Uses: The FCC adopted the Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions Report and Order, FCC 14-50, on May 15, 2014, published at 79 FR 48442 (Aug. 15, 2014). The Commission sought approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for some of the information collection requirements contained in FCC 14-50. The Commission will use the information to ensure compliance with required filings of notifications, certifications, license renewals, license cancelations, and license modifications. Also, such information will be used to minimize interference and to determine compliance with Commission's rules.

The following is a description of the information collection requirements for which the Commission sought OMB approval:

Section 27.14(k) requires 600 MHz licensees to demonstrate compliance with performance requirements by filing a construction notification with the Commission, within 15 days of the applicable benchmark.

Section 27.14(t)(6) requires 600 MHz licensees to make a renewal showing as a condition of each renewal. The showing must include a detailed description of the applicant's provision of service during the entire license period and address: (i) The level and quality of service provided by the applicant (including the population served, the area served, the number of subscribers, the services offered); (ii) the date service commenced, whether service was ever interrupted, and the duration of any interruption or outage; (iii) the extent to which service is provided to rural areas; (iv) the extent to which service is provided to qualifying tribal land as defined in 47 CFR 1.2110(f)(3)(i); and (v) any other factors associated with the level of service to the public.

Section 27.17(c) requires 600 MHz licensees to notify the Commission within 10 days of discontinuance if they permanently discontinue service by filing FCC Form 601 or 605 and requesting license cancellation.

Section 27.19(b) requires 600 MHz licensees with base and fixed stations in the 600 MHz downlink band within 25 kilometers of Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) observatories to coordinate with the National Science Foundation (NSF) prior to commencing operations.

Section 27.19(c) requires 600 MHz licensees that intend to operate base and fixed stations in the 600 MHz downlink band in locations near the Radio Astronomy Observatory site located in Green Bank, Pocahontas County, West Virginia, or near the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico, to comply with the provisions in 47 CFR 1.924.

Section 74.602(h)(5)(ii) requires 600 MHz licensees to notify the licensee of a studio-transmitter link (TV STL), TV relay station, or TV translator relay station of their intent to commence wireless operations and the likelihood of harmful interference from the TV STL, TV relay station, or TV translator relay station to those operations within the wireless licensee's licensed geographic service area. The notification is to be in the form of a letter, via certified mail, return receipt requested and must be sent not less than 30 days in advance of approximate date of commencement of operations.

Section 74.602(h)(5)(iii) requires all TV STL, TV relay station and TV translator relay station licensees to modify or cancel their authorizations and vacate the 600 MHz band no later than the end of the post-auction transition period as defined in 47 CFR 27.4.

These rules which contain information collection requirements are designed to provide for flexible use of this spectrum by allowing licensees to choose their type of service offerings, to encourage innovation and investment in mobile broadband use in this spectrum, and to provide a stable regulatory environment in which broadband deployment would be able to develop through the application of standard terrestrial wireless rules. Without this information, the Commission would not be able to carry out its statutory responsibilities.