Federal Register Vol. 81, No.144,

I. Objective

The purpose of this final rule is to:

• Enhance risk governance at the Corporation to further its long-term safety and soundness and mission achievement;

• Remove repetitious disclosure and reporting requirements, given the dual reporting responsibilities of the Corporation to the FCA and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC); and

• Clarify the examination and enforcement authority of FCA.

Farmer Mac is a stockholder-owned, federally chartered instrumentality that is an institution of the Farm Credit System (System) and a Government-sponsored enterprise (GSE). The Corporation was established and chartered by the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 (1987 Act) 1 to create a secondary market for agricultural real estate mortgage loans, rural housing mortgage loans, rural utility cooperative loans, and the guaranteed portions of USDA-guaranteed farm and rural development loans. Title VIII of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended, (Act) governs the Corporation.

The Corporation has two classes of voting common stock: Class A and Class B. Class A voting common stock is owned by banks, insurance companies, and other financial institutions. Class B voting common stock is owned by System institutions. In addition, the Corporation has nonvoting common stock (Class C), the ownership of which is not restricted and is a means for the Corporation to raise capital. The Corporation may also issue nonvoting preferred stock.

The Corporation is regulated by FCA through the Office of Secondary Market Oversight (OSMO). Congress charged us to issue regulations to ensure mission compliance and the safety and soundness of the Corporation. When issuing regulations for the Corporation, the Act requires FCA to consider:

• The purpose for which Farmer Mac was created;

• The practices appropriate to the conduct of secondary markets in agricultural loans; and

• The reduced levels of risks associated with appropriately structured secondary market transactions.2

Farmer Mac, as a publicly traded company, is also subject to many of the governance requirements of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Sarbanes-Oxley),3 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act),4 and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) disclosure regulations for publicly traded companies, all of which address reporting requirements and oversight for publicly held companies and financial institutions. Self-regulatory organizations (SROs), the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) in the Corporation's case, have also issued requirements designed to enhance the accountability and transparency of corporate business operations.

As a GSE, the Corporation has a public policy purpose embedded in its corporate mission. One aspect of this public policy mission includes financial services to customer-stakeholders (institutions that lend to farmers, ranchers, rural homeowners, and rural utility cooperatives) and the resulting flow-through benefits to rural borrowers. Another key aspect is the protection of taxpayer-stakeholders because the risk that the Corporation accepts in the course of business exposes both investors (debt and equity holders) and taxpayers to potential loss. The taxpayer's exposure arises in part from the Corporation's authority to issue debt to the Department of the Treasury to cover guarantee losses under certain adverse circumstances.5 Thus, an appropriately comprehensive approach to Board-level risk governance is essential to promote well-reasoned, risk-related decisions and promote public trust in the risk management of the Corporation.

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 13, 2016 (81 FR 1584) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by reports of operator inability to open the main passenger door following severe hot soak conditions. The NPRM proposed to require the incorporation of a new configuration to the passenger door external handle detent to enhance the performance across the full range of the airplane operating temperatures. We are issuing this AD to prevent thermal expansion and permanent deformation at severe hot soak conditions, creating high friction between the spring pot housing and the slider that could result in inability to open the main passenger door and impede evacuation in the event of an emergency.

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-03, dated March 13, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-8435.

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

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

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

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

Bombardier issued the following service Information:

• Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-52-021, Revision 01, dated February 3, 2015.

• Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-52-044, Revision 01, dated February 3, 2015.

• Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-52-5008, Revision 01, dated February 3, 2015.

• Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-52-6008, Revision 01, dated February 3, 2015.

The service information describes procedures to incorporate a new configuration to the passenger door external handle detent. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

We estimate that this AD affects 60 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $20,400, or $340 per product.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) (5 U.S.C.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency for “good cause” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under this section, an agency, upon finding good cause, may issue an interim final rule without seeking comment prior to the rulemaking.

The FAA finds that notice and public comment to this interim final rule are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. The provisions in this interim final rule will remove restrictive housing language affecting repair stations that hold limited airframe ratings and perform maintenance on airframe component parts rather than the entire aircraft. This rule will also amend the limited ratings section by adding a rating that will provide certificate holders and applicants with an additional option for defining the work they actually intend to perform. The removal of the restrictive housing language and adding an additional limited rating will not adversely affect current and future certificate holders. Regarding the restrictive housing language, this change is also consistent with how this regulation has been applied in practice. In addition, the removal of the restrictive language and adding an additional limited rating will not have a negative safety impact. The language is adopted to relieve economic burdens on the repair station industry and the possibility of forced repair station closings if the amended language were to be applied literally. Therefore, the FAA has determined that notice and public comment prior to publication are unnecessary.

In addition, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), the FAA is making this interim final rule effective upon publication because it is a substantive rule that relieves a restriction.

The Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT), (44 FR 1134; February 26, 1979), provide that to the maximum extent possible, operating administrations for the DOT should provide an opportunity for public comment on regulations issued without prior notice. Although the FAA is inviting comments, we have made the determination to adopt this interim final rule without prior notice and public comment due to the need to expedite a resolution for repair stations that perform maintenance on airframe component parts by removing the restrictive housing requirement and providing an additional limited rating as another option.

The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.

This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, General requirements, and section 44707, Examining and rating air agencies. Under section 44701, the FAA may prescribe equipment and facilities for, and the timing and manner of, inspecting, servicing, and overhauling of aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, appliances and constituent parts thereof. Under section 44707, the FAA may examine and rate repair stations. This regulation is within the scope of section 44701 since it specifies the facilities required, and the regulation is within the scope of 44707 since it specifies the ratings that are held by the repair stations.

The FAA's rules provide for two categories of repair station ratings that define and govern which articles 1 repair stations may work on under the part 145 regulations. These are class ratings (provided for in § 145.59) and limited ratings (provided for in § 145.61). Class ratings are broadly defined, and generally cover all articles listed in the category. Under § 145.61, however, the “FAA may issue a limited rating to a repair station that maintains or alters only a particular type of airframe, powerplant, propeller, radio, instrument, or accessory, or part thereof.” Section 145.61(b) provides that the FAA may issue limited ratings for 12 categories of aircraft articles. These are:

(1) Airframes of a particular make and model;

(2) Engines of a particular make and model;

(3) Propellers of a particular make and model;

(4) Instruments of a particular make and model;

(5) Radio equipment of a particular make and model;

(6) Accessories of a particular make and model;

(7) Landing gear components;

(8) Floats, by make;

(9) Nondestructive inspection, testing, and processing;

(10) Emergency equipment;

(11) Rotor blades, by make and model; and

(12) Aircraft fabric work.

Prior to 2001, § 145.33(b) 2 listed 13 categories for which the FAA issued limited ratings. The last of these (the 13th category) covered “Any other purpose for which the Administrator finds the applicant's request is appropriate.” In the 2001 amendments, the FAA, among other things, removed the 13th category of limited ratings. Now, as before 2001, if an applicant for a repair station certificate did not want a full class rating, but wanted to work only on a particular component or component parts of an aircraft, the applicant would seek a limited rating. After that amendment became effective in 2003, if the component part or parts listed in the application were not airframe components and did not fit in one of the other 11 limited rating categories, the agency often issued a limited airframe rating anyway with the make and model of the aircraft listed on the operations specifications, and the scope of work pertaining to the component parts requested, included as a limitation. In most of these cases, the FAA did not consider the requirements in § 145.103(b) that airframe-rated repair stations must provide housing to enclose the entire aircraft because the scope of the requested work did not require the entire aircraft to be enclosed.

In many cases, the issuance of these ratings ran afoul of the agency's repair station housing and facilities regulations because many airframe-rated repair stations performing only component part maintenance did not provide housing that could enclose the entire aircraft listed on their operations specifications. Although these categories of repair stations could easily meet the requirements of § 145.103(a)(1) (which requires housing for the facilities, equipment, materials, and personnel consistent with the repair station's ratings) if their work was limited to working only on component parts, many did not meet the requirements of § 145.103(b). To answer the question whether the term “airframe rating” as used in § 145.103(b) contemplates a limited airframe rating, in March 2015, the FAA's Office of the Chief Counsel issued a legal interpretation concluding that a limited airframe rating is an airframe rating as the term is used in that regulation.3 The interpretation essentially stated that an airframe-rated repair station, whether limited airframe or class airframe-rated, must obtain the housing as required in § 145.103(b).

Prior to the March 2015 interpretation, some FAA offices that issued limited airframe ratings for component parts work interpreted the term airframe rating in § 145.103(b) to refer only to a class airframe rating. Thus, in those cases, the issue of requiring housing to enclose the largest aircraft on the repair station's operations specifications was never addressed. According to that reasoning, a class rating as described in § 145.59(a) would require housing large enough to enclose the entire aircraft, but a limited airframe rating provided as described in § 145.61(b)(1) would not.4 Consequently, if an applicant sought only a limited airframe rating for a component part(s), those FAA offices did not believe § 145.103(b) applied to those situations.

Currently, many repair stations hold a limited airframe rating and do not have housing to enclose the largest type and model aircraft listed on their operations specifications. As one consequence of the above-referenced legal interpretation, some repair stations that perform maintenance on component parts only, and hold a limited airframe rating, are being advised by their local FAA offices to either obtain costly housing to enclose the largest type and model aircraft on their operations specifications, or to seek an exemption from the housing requirement. This has created an economic burden on these repair stations and a potential resource burden on the FAA to process a likely flood of petitions for exemption.

To remedy the situations whereby some limited airframe-rated repair stations are not in full compliance with the housing regulation, and where, in some cases, the scope of work being performed does not technically fit within the airframe rating, this interim final rule will remove the one-size-fits-all requirement of current § 145.103(b) and provide an additional limited rating category to cover work not addressed by the existing 12 categories. These actions will assist the repair station industry by eliminating the costly housing requirement that is not necessary in many cases. In place of that housing regulation, we are adding two amendments that will address and resolve this issue.

First, the FAA is adding “and limitations” to the housing and facilities requirements in § 145.103(a)(1). With this change, the housing for a repair station's facilities, equipment, materials, and personnel must be consistent not only with its ratings, but also with the limitations to those ratings. Adding “limitations” to this regulation will assist both the repair stations and the FAA in determining a repair station's housing needs by considering the limitations associated with the rating under review. For example, a repair station with a limited powerplant rating may list a certain make and model of powerplant under its limited rating, but intend to maintain or repair only specified component parts of the engine, such as blade or vane repairs. The repair station would only need to provide housing, equipment, materials, and personnel to perform maintenance on blades and vanes if it does not perform work on the entire engine.

Second, the FAA is adding the 13th limited rating category under § 145.61(b) that was removed in the 2001 final rule. The new limited rating will allow the FAA to issue a limited rating for any other purpose for which it finds the applicant's request is appropriate. The additional limited rating is intended to be issued for repair stations that wish to perform maintenance on items such as aircraft interiors, upholstering, serving carts, cabinets, unit load devices, and other component items that do not necessarily fit into one of the 12 existing limited ratings. This action provides future certificate holders another option for ratings that will better define the type of maintenance they wish to perform. It will reduce the number of limited airframe ratings issued for component part work for which an airframe rating is not needed. In some cases, existing repair stations that hold limited airframe ratings issued for items that do not fit the category may amend their rating to the newly restored 13th limited rating, but such amendments are not required. If, however, an existing airframe-rated repair station wishes to add a non-airframe component to its operations specifications or capabilities list, it would have to apply for a limited rating in one of the other 12 categories, as appropriate.

In order to remedy the above-described problems caused by the restrictive housing requirements of § 145.103(b), the FAA is removing the text in its entirety. Removing existing § 145.103(b) provides flexibility to certificate holders and applicants with regard to the type of housing they are required to provide. Current § 145.103(c) provides that a certificated repair station may perform maintenance on articles outside of its housing if it provides suitable facilities that meet the general housing and facilities requirements of § 145.103(a) so that the work can be done in accordance with 14 CFR part 43. This paragraph is renumbered as § 145.103(b).

Although the requirement to enclose the largest type and model aircraft is no longer required, suitable housing as identified in §§ 145.101 and 145.103(a) remains applicable for all repair stations, regardless of whether they hold class or limited ratings. Section 145.101 requires, generally, that each certificated repair station “must provide housing, facilities, equipment, materials, and data that meet the applicable requirements for the issuance of the certificate and ratings the repair station holds.” Therefore, the FAA must evaluate each repair station application to assure that the housing and other requirements appropriate to the rating sought are met. In order to meet the requirements of §§ 145.101 and 145.103(a), repair stations that intend to work on an entire aircraft, or large portions of it, would still be required to provide housing that ensures appropriate protection from environmental elements for the work being performed.

The FAA is removing the introductory phrase of § 145.205(d) (“Notwithstanding the housing requirement of § 145.103(b)”) because the referenced section is being withdrawn by this rulemaking. As a result of that withdrawal, part 145 will no longer contain a specific housing regulation requiring an entire aircraft to be enclosed—rather the general requirements of §§ 145.101 and 145.103 will require housing and other protections appropriate for the work performed. Newly renumbered § 145.103(b) (formerly § 145.103(c)) permits repair stations (including those authorized to perform line maintenance under § 145.205(d)) to perform maintenance outside of its housing so long as they provide suitable facilities to adequately protect the work and personnel. Although new § 145.103(b) will still require a repair station to provide suitable facilities if the repair station works outside of its housing, the intent remains that those repair stations authorized to perform line maintenance at airport locations on the ramp outside of housing should ensure, to the extent practicable, that the work is protected from adverse elements in accordance with §§ 145.101 and 145.103.

In addition, the FAA is adding the phrase “and limitations” to the end of paragraph (1) of § 145.103(a). The section will now require that each certificated repair station must provide: “(1) Housing for the facilities, equipment, materials, and personnel consistent with its ratings and limitations.” With this change, if a repair station's scope of work is limited to work that does not require the size and type of housing that the rating without the limitation would require, the repair station would need to provide housing only sufficient to accommodate its limited scope of work.

Finally, this interim final rule adds a limited rating to § 145.61(b) that allows the FAA to issue limited ratings for any other purpose for which it finds the applicant's request is appropriate. This new rating provides applicants and existing certificate holders another option for ratings that will better define the type of maintenance they wish to perform, whether it be on component parts of an airframe, powerplant, propeller, or on any other article in the class ratings identified in § 145.59. Without this additional rating category, many repair stations could continue to be issued a limited airframe rating as a catch all rating, which does not always clearly identify the actual type of work being performed.

Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this interim final rule.

Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement to that effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble if a full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. Such a determination has been made for this rule. The reasoning for this determination follows.

Currently, § 145.103(b) states that a certificated repair station with an airframe rating must provide suitable permanent housing to enclose the largest type and model of aircraft listed on its operations specifications. This requirement is problematic for airframe rated repair stations that perform maintenance only on component parts and not the entire aircraft. Airframe-rated repair stations that do not provide the housing because they do not need it for their scope of work need to petition for an exemption from it. This rule will remove § 145.103(b) and retain the general housing and facilities requirements in §§ 145.101 and 145.103(a) and (c), which specify that each repair station must provide suitable housing consistent with its ratings. Thus this rule will remove an unnecessary burden for airframe-rated repair stations, and the costs would be minimal, as it is relieving in nature.

The FAA's review of past exemption requests prompted by the existing requirement in § 145.103(b) showed that from 2004 to the present, the agency processed 15 petitions for exemption. The FAA estimates that, on average, a petitioner spends 20 hours to prepare a petition for exemption from § 145.103(b), and the FAA takes 50 hours to process each of those petitions. According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2016 the mean hourly wage with benefits is $41.38 for a mechanic and supervisor. The average hourly wage for a J band FAA employee in Washington DC is $58.00. Over a twelve-year period at today's wages, the estimated savings equals 15 exemptions multiplied by 20 hours per exemption multiplied by $41.38 per hour, plus 15 exemptions multiplied by 50 hours per exemption multiplied by $58.00 per hour, which equals $56,000, or approximately $4,700 annually. This is a minimal cost; therefore, under Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5, the agency is not required to prepare a full regulatory evaluation.

The FAA has, therefore, determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not “significant” as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.” To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration. The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.

However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.

Many repair stations are small entities. Future business decisions to provide repair of aircraft components can be negatively impacted if the existing housing rule for airframe-rated repair stations remains in place. Currently each airframe-rated repair station must provide suitable permanent housing to enclose the largest type and model of aircraft listed on its operations specifications. For those airframe-rated repair stations that provide component maintenance only, and not full aircraft maintenance, the requirement to provide permanent housing for the aircraft would be very expensive and counterproductive. Most of the petitions for exemption from § 145.103(b) are from repair stations that do not work on an entire aircraft. This rule removes § 145.103(b) so that all repair stations will need to provide only the housing necessary to conduct their repair business. Thus this rule will be relieving in nature and be a benefit to small entities, albeit a small benefit. While the rule will impact a substantial number of small entities, it will not impose a significant economic impact on them.

If an agency determines that a rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the head of the agency may so certify under section 605(b) of the RFA. Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies that this rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this rule and determined that it offers the same relieving impact on affected international repair stations.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155 million in lieu of $100 million. This rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that there is no new requirement for information collection associated with this interim final rule.

In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to these proposed regulations.

Harmonization. This rulemaking will not be involved in harmonization with any foreign aviation authorities.

FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 5-6.6 and involves no extraordinary circumstances.

The FAA has analyzed this interim final rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, does not have Federalism implications.

The FAA analyzed this interim final rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under the executive order and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, (77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this action would have no effect on international regulatory cooperation.

An electronic copy of a rulemaking document may be obtained by using the Internet—

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

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

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

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

Comments received may be viewed by going to http://www.regulations.gov and following the online instructions to search the docket number for this action. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of the FAA's dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).

The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document, may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble. To find out more about SBREFA on the Internet, visit http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

Order Recognizing the Resource Extraction Payment Disclosure Requirements of the European Union, Canada and the U.S. Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative as Substantially Similar to the Requirements of Rule 13q-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”).

For the reasons set forth in the adopting release for Rule 13q-1 and the accompanying amendments to Form SD,1 the Commission hereby finds that the following resource extraction payment disclosure regimes are substantially similar to the disclosure requirements of Rule 13q-1 for purposes of the alternative reporting provisions of paragraph (c) of Item 2.01 of Form SD:

1. Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types of undertakings (“EU Accounting Directive”) as implemented in a European Union or European Economic Area member country;

2. Directive 2013/50/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending Directive 2004/109/EC on transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market, Directive 2003/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading and Commission Directive 2007/14/EC on the implementation of certain provisions of Directive 2004/109/EC (“EU Transparency Directive”) as implemented in a European Union or European Economic Area member country;

3. Canada's Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act (“ESTMA”); and

4. The U.S. Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (“USEITI”).

Issuers are advised that our determination of substantial similarity with respect to each of these four regimes may be subject to reconsideration if there should be any significant modifications to those regimes.

The Commission also hereby finds that this determination is in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered pursuant to Section 36(a) of the Exchange Act that a resource extraction issuer, as defined in Item 2.01(d) of Form SD, that files a report complying with the reporting requirements of either the EU Accounting Directive or the EU Transparency Directive, in each case as implemented in a European Union or European Economic Area member country, ESTMA, or the USEITI, in accordance with the requirements set forth in paragraph (c) of Item 2.01(c) of Form SD and the conditions specified below, will satisfy its disclosure obligations under Rule 13q-1.

1. USEITI reports only satisfy a resource extraction issuer's disclosure obligations under Item 2.01(a) of Form SD for payments made to the Federal Government.

2. A resource extraction issuer may not follow the USEITI submission deadline to the extent it differs from the 150 day deadline in General Instruction B.2 of Form SD and must provide the required payment information on a fiscal year basis.

The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulations in 33 CFR 100.1102 for the Bullhead City River Regatta in 33 CFR 100.1102, Table 1, Item 16 of that section from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. on August 13, 2016. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, crew, spectators, safety vessels, and general users of the waterway. Our regulation for the annual marine events on the Colorado River, between Davis Dam (Bullhead City, Arizona) and Headgate Dam (Parker, Arizona) identifies the regulated entities for this event. Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.1102, no spectator shall anchor, block, loiter, nor impede the through transit of participants or official patrol vessels within this regulated area of the Colorado River unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.1102 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this document in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with extensive advance notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners and local advertising by the event sponsor.

If the Captain of the Port or his designated representative determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated on this document, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners or other communications coordinated with the event sponsor to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

The DelMoSports, LLC, on behalf of the New Jersey Department of Transportation, who owns the US40-322 (Albany Avenue) Bridge across the NJICW (Inside Thorofare), mile 70.0, at Atlantic City, NJ, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.733(f) to ensure the safety of the participants and spectators associated with the 2016 6th Annual Atlantic City Triathlon.

Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will be maintained in the closed-to-navigation position from 6:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on August 14, 2016. The bridge is a double bascule bridge and has a vertical clearance in the closed-to-navigation position of 10 feet above mean high water.

The NJICW (Inside Thorofare) is used by recreational vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully considered the nature and volume of vessel traffic in publishing this temporary deviation.

Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open in case of an emergency. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule 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.

I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

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-2015-0735 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 September 26, 2016. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0735, 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 April 25, 2016 (81 FR 24044) (FRL-9944-86), 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 5F8398) by Valent U.S.A. Corporation, 1600 Riveira Avenue, Suite 200, Walnut Creek, CA 94596. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing a tolerance for residues of the insecticide, etoxazole, 2-(2,6-difluorophenyl)-4-[4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-2-ethoxyphenyl]-4,5-dihydrooxazole, in or on soybean at 0.01 parts per million (ppm). A comment was received on the notice of filing. EPA's response to this comment is discussed in Unit IV.C.

Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has modified the level at which the tolerance is being established. The reason for this change is explained in Unit IV.D.

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 etoxazole including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with etoxazole 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.

The effects in the etoxazole database show liver toxicity in all species tested (enzyme release, hepatocellular swelling and histopathological indicators), and the severity does not appear to increase with time. In rats only, there were effects on incisors (elongation, whitening, and partial loss of upper and/or lower incisors). There is no evidence of neurotoxicity or immunotoxicity. No toxicity was seen at the limit dose in a 28-day dermal toxicity study in rats. Etoxazole was not mutagenic.

No increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibilities were observed following in utero exposure to rats or rabbits in the developmental studies; however, offspring toxicity was more severe (increased pup mortality) than maternal toxicity (increased liver and adrenal weights) at the same dose (158.7 mg/kg/day) in the rat reproduction study indicating increased qualitative susceptibility. Etoxazole is not likely to be carcinogenic based on the lack of carcinogenicity effects in the database.

Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by etoxazole as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov on pages 20-23 of the document titled “Etoxazole: Human Health Risk Assessment in Support of Proposed Use and Tolerances for Residues of Etoxazole in/on Soybean Seed” in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0735.

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://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.

A summary of the toxicological endpoints for etoxazole used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule published in the Federal Register of December 2, 2015 (80 FR 75426) (FRL-9934-60).

1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to etoxazole, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing etoxazole tolerances in 40 CFR 180.593. EPA assessed dietary exposures from etoxazole 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.

No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for etoxazole; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.

ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA; 2003-2008). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level residues or tolerance-level residues adjusted to account for the residues of concern, 100% crop treated (PCT), and in the absence of empirical data, Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM) (ver 7.81) default processing factors.

iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that etoxazole 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 percent crop treated (PCT) information. EPA did not use anticipated residue or PCT information in the dietary assessment for etoxazole. 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 etoxazole in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of etoxazole. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.

Based on the FQPA Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of etoxazole for chronic exposures are estimated to be 4.761 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.746 ppb for ground water.

Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For the chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 4.761 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). Etoxazole is not registered for any specific use patterns that would result in residential exposure.

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 etoxazole to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and etoxazole does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that etoxazole 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://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

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 Food Quality Protection Act (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. No increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibilities were observed following in utero exposure to rats or rabbits in the developmental studies. There is evidence of increased qualitative offspring susceptibility in the rat reproduction study, but the concern is low since: (1) The effects in pups are well-characterized with a clear NOAEL; (2) the selected endpoints are protective of the doses where the offspring toxicity is observed; and (3) offspring effects occur in the presence of parental toxicity. There are no residual uncertainties for pre-/post-natal toxicity.

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 etoxazole is complete.

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

iii. The observed qualitative postnatal susceptibility is protected for by the selected endpoints.

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 etoxazole in drinking water. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by etoxazole.

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. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore, etoxazole is not expected to pose an acute risk.

2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to etoxazole from food and water will utilize 15% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. There are no residential uses for etoxazole.

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

A short- and intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however, etoxazole is not registered for any use patterns that would result in either short- or intermediate-term residential exposure. Short- and intermediate-term risk is assessed based on short- or intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no short- or 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 short- or intermediate-term risk), no further assessment of short- or intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating short- and intermediate-term risk for etoxazole.

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

5. 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 etoxazole residues.

Adequate enforcement methodology (gas chromatography/mass-selective detector (GC/MSD) or GC/nitrogen-phosphorus detector (NPD)) are available to enforce the tolerance expression.

The methods 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 etoxazole in or on soybean seed.

A comment was submitted by the Center for Food Safety and was primarily concerned about environmental risks, including impacts on pollinators and endangered species, and Agency's assessment of the pesticide product under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The comment did not raise any specific issues concerning the safety of etoxazole under the FFDCA. As such, this comment is not relevant to the Agency's evaluation of safety of the etoxazole tolerances; section 408 of the FFDCA focuses on potential harms to human health and does not permit consideration of effects on the environment.

The proposed tolerance of 0.01 ppm is below the validated limit of quantification (LOQ) of 0.02 ppm for the analytical method and is therefore being raised to the LOQ level.

Therefore, a tolerance is established for residues of etoxazole, 2-(2,6-difluorophenyl)-4-[4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-2-ethoxyphenyl]-4,5-dihydrooxazole, in or on soybean, seed at 0.02 ppm.

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

Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the 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:

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:

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:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.

This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.

Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the address cited below for each community.

The BFEs and modified BFEs are made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected locations in each community are shown.

National Environmental Policy Act. This final rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared.

Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

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 final rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

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

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows:

This is a summary of the Commission's Order, FCC 16-87, GEN Docket No. 86-285, adopted on July 6, 2016 and released on July 7, 2016.

1. 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).

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

3. By this Order, the Commission makes rule changes to Part 1 of the Commission's rules, and amends its Schedule of Application Fees, 47 CFR 1.1102 et seq., as listed in the Appendix, to adjust its fees for processing applications and other filings. Section 8(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Commission to “assess and collect application fees at such rates as the Commission shall establish or at such modified rates as it shall establish pursuant to” section 8(b).1 Section 8(g) contains the Schedule of Charges for a broad range of application categories as well as procedures for modifying and collecting these charges. Section 8(b)(1) requires that the Schedule of Application Fees “be reviewed by the Commission every two years after October 1, 1991, and adjusted by the Commission to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index.” As required by section 8(b)(1), this Order increases application fees to reflect the net change in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (“CPI-U”) of 1.8 percent, an increase of 4.292 index points calculated from October 2013 (233.546) to October 2015 (237.838).2 The adjustments comply with the statutory formula set forth in section 8(b).

4. The methodology and timing of adjustments to application fees are prescribed by statute at 47 U.S.C. 158(b). Because our action implementing the statute leaves us no discretion, prior notice and comment is unnecessary pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). This Order is also exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(2). Copies of this Order will be sent to Congress and the Comptroller General in compliance with the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. Notification of the fee adjustments made in this Order will be published in the Federal Register.

5. Accordingly, it is ordered, that, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 8 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 158, the rule changes specified herein are adopted and the Schedule of Application Fees, 47 CFR 1.1102 et seq., is amended as set forth in the attached table of fees.

6. It is further ordered that the rule changes and amendment to the Schedule of Application Fees made herein shall become effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 1 as follows: