Federal Register Vol. 81, No.23,

The regulations in 7 CFR part 319 prohibit or restrict the importation of certain plants and plant products into the United States to prevent the introduction of quarantine plant pests. The regulations contained in “Subpart—Plants for Planting,” §§ 319.37 through 319.37-14 (referred to below as the regulations), prohibit or restrict, among other things, the importation of living plants, plant parts, and seeds for propagation or planting.

The regulations differentiate between prohibited articles and restricted articles. Prohibited articles are plants for planting whose importation into the United States is not authorized due to the risk the articles present of introducing or disseminating plant pests. Restricted articles are articles authorized for importation into the United States, provided that the articles are subject to measures to address such risk.

Conditions for the importation into the United States of restricted articles in growing media are found in § 319.37-8. Within that section, the introductory text of paragraph (e) lists taxa of restricted articles that may be imported into the United States in approved growing media, subject to the provisions of a systems approach. Paragraph (e)(1) of § 319.37-8 lists the approved growing media, while paragraph (e)(2) contains the provisions of the systems approach. Within paragraph (e)(2), paragraphs (i) through (viii) contain provisions that are generally applicable to all the taxa listed in the introductory text of paragraph (e). Paragraphs (i) through (viii) collectively:

• Require the plants to be grown in accordance with written agreements between the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of the country where the plants are grown and between the foreign NPPO and the grower;

• Require the plants to be rooted and grown in a greenhouse that meets certain requirements for quarantine pest exclusion and that is used only for plants being grown in compliance with § 319.37-8(e);

• Restrict the source of the seeds or parent plants used to produce the plants, and require grow-out or treatment of parent plants imported into the exporting country from another country;

• Specify the sources of water that may be used on the plants, the height of the benches on which the plants must be grown, and the conditions under which the plants must be stored and packaged; and

• Require that the plants be inspected in the greenhouse and found free of evidence of quarantine plant pests no more than 30 days prior to the exportation of the plants to the United States.

A phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of the country in which the plants were grown that declares that the above conditions have been met must accompany the plants at the time of importation. These conditions have been used successfully to mitigate the risk of quarantine pest introduction associated with the importation into the United States of approved plants established in growing media.

In response to a request from the NPPO of Taiwan, we prepared a pest risk analysis (PRA) in order to identify the quarantine plant pests that could follow the importation of orchid plants of the genus Oncidium in approved growing media from Taiwan into the United States. (Under § 319.37-1 of the regulations, a quarantine plant pest is a plant pest that is of potential economic importance to the United States and not yet present in the United States, or present but not widely distributed and being officially controlled.)

Based on the findings of the PRA, we prepared a risk management document (RMD) to determine whether phytosanitary measures exist that would address this quarantine plant pest risk. The RMD suggested that the risk would be addressed if the plants met the general conditions of § 319.37-8(e)(2).

As a result, on December 3, 2014, we published in the Federal Register (79 FR 71703-71705, Docket No. APHIS-2014-0041) a proposal 1 to amend the regulations by adding Oncidium spp. orchids from Taiwan to the list of plants for planting in approved growing media that may be imported into the United States.

We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending February 2, 2015. We reopened and extended the deadline for comments until March 18, 2015, in a document published in the Federal Register on March 12, 2015 (80 FR 12954, Docket No. APHIS-2014-0041). We received 50 comments on the proposed rule by that date. They were from members of Congress, representatives of State governments, industry organizations, and private citizens. Seven comments were supportive. Two commenters were generally opposed to the proposal but included no detailed objections to the action. The remainder of the comments are discussed below by topic.

A number of commenters stated that the specific orchid species that fall into the Oncidium genus, and that would therefore be authorized for importation from Taiwan under the proposed rule, were not clear. They pointed out that the Oncidium genus was recently rearranged based on an analysis of the boundaries of that genus. The commenters said that we must clarify which orchids are considered to be part of the genus Oncidium for purposes of the proposed rule, and that such clarification must be reflected in all supporting documents.

We agree with the commenters that the genus Oncidium has been subject to revision, and some taxa previously classified as Oncidium spp. have been relocated into different genera. For purposes of this rule, Oncidium species are those species currently agreed upon by the international taxonomic community to belong to the genus Oncidium, as well as interspecies hybrids within that genus. However, since the supporting documents that accompanied the proposed rule considered all the species that remain in the genus after the revision, as well as interspecies hybrids, we do not consider it necessary to revise the supporting documents as the commenters requested.

Several commenters stated that, because bare-rooted Oncidium spp. orchids from Taiwan are already authorized for importation into the United States, it is not necessary to authorize the importation of Oncidium spp. orchids in growing media.

Under the regulations in 7 CFR 319.5, the NPPO of a foreign country may request that APHIS authorize the importation of a plant or plant product that is not allowed importation into the United States, and APHIS will consider the request if it includes all the categories of information specified in § 319.5 for such requests. The NPPO of Taiwan made such a request for Oncidium spp. orchids in approved growing media.

Several commenters stated that the rule appears to be the byproduct of bilateral negotiations between the United States and Taiwan, and that the rule was linked to agreements authorizing the export of certain U.S. commodities to Taiwan. Because of this, the commenters expressed concern that APHIS did not adequately consider the risk associated with the importation of Oncidium spp. orchids from Taiwan in growing media. Similarly, other commenters stated that we issued the proposed rule solely because large-scale U.S. importers of orchids requested it.

While political and economic interests may stimulate consideration of the expansion of trade of agricultural commodities between countries, these did not lead us to issue the proposed rule. The United States is a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), and a signatory to the WTO's Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) and the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC). In these capacities, the United States has agreed that any prohibitions it places on the importation of plants for planting will be based on scientific evidence, and will not be maintained without sufficient scientific evidence indicating that the prohibitions are necessary to protect plant life and health within the United States.

The PRA and RMD that accompanied the proposed rule evaluated the quarantine plant risk associated with the importation of Oncidium spp. orchids in approved growing media from Taiwan into the United States. These documents provided scientific evidence that a prohibition on the importation of Oncidium spp. orchids in approved growing media is not necessary in order to protect plant life and health in the United States, and the risk associated with such importation could be addressed by requiring the orchids and growing media to be produced in accordance with § 319.37-8(e). This led us to issue the proposed rule.

We prepared the PRA and RMD in accordance with IPPC standards 2 and our own guidelines, and we are confident that they adequately evaluated the plant pest risk associated with the importation of Oncidium spp. orchids in approved growing media from Taiwan into the United States.

One commenter stated that certain life stages of quarantine plant pests can be difficult to detect at ports of entry into the United States, as can quarantine plant pests with unique feeding habits. For this reason, the commenter stated that we should prohibit the importation of Oncidium spp. orchids in approved growing media into the United States.

If the provisions of the proposed rule are adhered to, there will be a negligible risk that Oncidium spp. orchids in approved growing media from Taiwan that are imported into the United States will harbor quarantine plant pests.

That being said, pursuant to §§ 319.37-3 and 319.37-11 of the regulations, lots of Oncidium spp. orchids in approved growing media from Taiwan that consist of 13 or more plants must be imported to a United States Department of Agriculture plant inspection station for entry into the United States—we anticipate that almost all lots of Oncidium spp. orchids in approved growing media from Taiwan that are exported to the United States will consist of more than 13 plants. Personnel at plant inspection stations are trained to detect plant pests and signs and symptoms of plant pests, including those that are difficult to detect, and have access to personnel with scientific expertise in identifying plant pests.

One commenter stated that Taiwan cannot be trusted to adhere to the provisions of the proposed rule.

Like the United States, Taiwan is a signatory to the SPS Agreement. As such, it has agreed to respect the phytosanitary measures the United States imposes on the importation of plants and plant products from Taiwan when the United States demonstrates the need to impose these measures in order to protect plant health within the United States. The PRA that accompanied the proposed rule provided evidence of such a need.

One commenter stated that the NPPO of Taiwan should have to demonstrate adherence to the proposed systems approach with small shipments of orchids before we allow more widespread export of Oncidium spp. orchids from Taiwan under the provisions of the systems approach.

We do not consider this sort of provisional authorization necessary. We authorize the importation of many plants and plant products from Taiwan into the United States, and have not encountered any issues to suggest the NPPO of Taiwan will not or cannot adhere to the requirements of our export programs for such commodities.

As we mentioned above, we prepared a PRA in support of the proposed rule. The purpose of the PRA was to identify the quarantine plant pests that could follow the importation of Oncidium spp. orchid plants in approved growing media from Taiwan to the United States.

One commenter pointed out that the PRA was completed in May of 2012. The commenter asked whether there have been any additional quarantine pests associated with Oncidium spp. orchids detected in Taiwan since it was completed.

There have not been any such detections.

As part of the PRA, we prepared a list of plant pests that are associated with Oncidium spp. orchids and that we determined to occur in Taiwan.

One commenter asked why we limited the list to plant pests. The commenter asked whether APHIS had considered whether zoonotic diseases could follow the pathway on Oncidium spp. orchids in growing media, and, more generally, whether APHIS had considered the potential risks to human and animal health associated with such importation.

We limit our PRAs to evaluating plant pest risk; this is consistent with our PRA guidelines related to this specific class of plant commodity and also with IPPC standards. However, the environmental assessment that accompanied the proposed rule evaluated the potential environmental consequences associated with authorizing the importation of Oncidium spp. orchids in approved growing media. This includes potential human or animal health risks.

Several commenters pointed out that, while some plant pests on the list were identified to the species level, others were identified only to the genus level. The commenters stated that certain species within a genus of plant pests can be significantly more destructive than other species within that genus, and asked us to revise the pest list to identify all plant pests of Oncidium spp. orchids that we believe to occur in Taiwan to the species level.

The commenters are correct that certain plant pest species within a particular genus can be significantly more destructive than other species in the same genus. For this reason, as we stated in the PRA, the taxonomic level for organisms listed in our PRAs is usually the species. This is consistent with both our standards as well as with the IPPC standards for PRAs, which suggest that, within PRAs, the identity of the organism should be clearly defined to ensure that the assessment is being conducted on distinct organisms.3

Accordingly, within the PRA, all plant pests that we determined to be associated with Oncidium spp. orchids in growing media and to occur in Taiwan were identified to the species level. If we listed the genus or family level of the pest in the PRA, this is because a pest in that genus or family was intercepted on bare-rooted Oncidium spp. orchids from Taiwan, but we could not identify the genus or family as occurring in Taiwan or being associated with Oncidium spp. orchids. We included entries for these genera and families in the PRA for the sake of transparency and completeness, but do not consider further classification of the intercepted pests to be necessary.

One commenter pointed out that our PRA included not only a pest list, but also a list of plant pests that have been intercepted on bare-rooted Oncidium spp. orchids at ports of entry into the United States between 1985 and 2010. The commenter asked why the pest list did not include all pests listed on this latter list.

If the pest list did not include a particular plant pest for which we have pest interception records, it was because we could either find no evidence that the pest occurs in Taiwan, or could find no additional evidence suggesting the pest is associated with Oncidium spp. orchids.

Several commenters expressed concern that the pest list may be incomplete, and that unidentified quarantine pests could be introduced into the United States through the importation of Oncidium spp. orchids from Taiwan in approved growing media.

We compiled the pest list in the PRA from multiple sources, including information provided by the NPPO of Taiwan, pest detection records, and our own review of scientific literature. We are confident that the list has identified all quarantine pests associated with Oncidium spp. orchids in approved growing media that occur in Taiwan.

A commenter expressed concern that, if quarantine pests of Oncidium spp. orchids that were not listed in the PRA are subsequently detected in Taiwan, the systems approach in the proposed rule may not contain measures that mitigate these plant pest risks.

If this occurs, we will take appropriate measures to address such risk. This could include additional restrictions on the importation of Oncidium spp. orchids in growing media from Taiwan and/or suspension of the export program for Oncidium spp. orchids in growing media from Taiwan until APHIS and the NPPO of Taiwan jointly agree that the risk has been addressed.

One commenter pointed out that no nematodes were included in the pest list. The commenter asked us to explain their omission.

As we mentioned above, the list was of plant pests that are associated with Oncidium spp. and that we determined to occur in Taiwan. There are no species of nematodes that meet these two criteria.

A commenter pointed out that the pest list had only included one species of Fusarium (a genus of pathogenic fungi), Fusarium oxysporum. The commenter stated that APHIS had previously indicated that multiple species of Fusarium occur in Taiwan, but that we lack diagnostic tools to identify all of these species conclusively. The commenter questioned this discrepancy.

At this time, we are aware that multiple species of Fusarium occur in Taiwan. However, only one of these Fusarium species—F. oxysporum—is known to be associated with Oncidium spp. orchids.

The same commenter stated that we had also previously indicated that we take no action at ports of entry to the United States on commodities determined to be affected with Fusarium spp., and questioned this policy.

Under the Plant Protection Act (PPA, 7 U.S.C. 7711 et seq.), with limited exceptions, we may apply remedial measures to plants or plant products that are in the process of being imported into the United States only in order to prevent the dissemination of a plant pest that is new or not known to be widely prevalent or distributed within and throughout the United States. When we have detected Fusarium spp. on commodities at ports of entry into the United States, the species detected have been ones that are widely prevalent within the United States.

One commenter pointed out that the PRA stated that we have intercepted springtails of the family Sminthuridae on bare-rooted Oncidium spp. orchids from Taiwan. The commenter asked whether we had intercepted Sminthurus viridis, the Lucerne earth flea. If so, the commenter suggested that we should add S. viridis to the pest list.

We have not intercepted S. viridis. Moreover, there is no evidence that S. viridis exists in Taiwan or is associated with Oncidium spp. orchids.

Several commenters pointed out that biting midges (Ceratopoginidae =Culicoides spp., Forcipomyia spp.) were not included on the pest list in the PRA. The commenters stated that biting midges occur in Taiwan, and could be imported in sphagnum moss, which is listed in § 319.37-8 as an approved growing medium. The commenters stated that midges can vector arboviruses, filarial worms, other parasites, and, while prevalent in the United States, are not established throughout their geographical range. The commenters stated that immature midges could enter greenhouses where Oncidium spp. orchids intended for export to the United States are produced and develop in sphagnum moss, and would be able to survive transit from Taiwan to the United States in moist sphagnum. The commenters asked that the pest list be revised to include biting midges, and biting midge-specific mitigations be added to the systems approach of the proposed rule.

We disagree that sphagnum moss is a hospitable host for biting midges, and that biting midges are likely to follow the pathway on such moss when it is used as a growing medium for plants for planting. We approved the use of sphagnum moss as a growing medium for plants for planting in 1980 (45 FR 31572-31597). Given the worldwide prevalence of biting midges, we would expect to have detected biting midges during port-of-entry inspections of orchids and other plants for planting in sphagnum moss by this time. We have had no such detections.

Additionally, we note that there is no evidence that biting midges are plant pests.

Similarly, a commenter stated that sphagnum moss and organic fibers, which are also listed as an approved growing medium, can harbor nematodes and species of fire ants of quarantine significance, and that these pests could therefore follow the pathway on Oncidium spp. orchids imported from Taiwan in such material and become established in the United States. The same commenter also stated that sphagnum moss can harbor microorganisms that cause significant disease in plants. The commenter asked us to revise the pest list accordingly.

We have no evidence that sphagnum moss or organic fibers are a pathway for the pests mentioned by the commenter, nor did the commenter supply any such evidence. Since sphagnum moss and organic fibers were approved as growing media for plants for planting in 1980, there have been no detections of quarantine plant pests on these growing media that would suggest these growing media are a pathway for the introduction of quarantine plant pests.

Several commenters stated that many quarantine plant pests that are not associated with Oncidium spp. orchids are associated with bark, which is often used as a growing medium for Oncidium spp. orchids, and the pest list should be revised to take this into consideration.

Bark is not listed in § 319.37-8 as an approved growing medium.

Finally, several commenters stated that we should revise the pest list to indicate that several of the plant pests listed, while not quarantine plant pests, are not known to occur in Hawaii.

This practice would be inconsistent with IPPC standards for PRAs, which suggest that pests should be classified based on whether or not they are quarantine pests.4 It would also be inconsistent with our own PRA guidelines and regulatory practices.

Based on the pest list, the PRA identified 14 quarantine pests as occurring in Taiwan and potentially following the pathway on Oncidium spp. orchids in approved growing media:

• Tetranychus kanzawai Kishida, a spider mite.

• Amsacta lactinea Cramer, a tiger moth.

• Spodoptera litura (Fabricius), the Oriental leafworm moth.

• Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood, the chili thrips.

• Thrips palmi Karny, the melon thrips.

• Lissachatina fulica (Bowdich), a snail.

• Deroceras laeve (Muller), the marsh slug.

• Parmarion martensi Simroth, a semislug.

• Petalochlamys vesta (Pfeiffer), a snail.

• Meghimatium bilineatus (Benson), a slug.

• Meghimatium pictum Stoliczka, a slug.

• Laevicaulis alte (Férussac), the tropical leatherleaf.

• Pectobacterium cypripedii (Hori) Brenner et al., a bacterial leaf-disease of orchids.

• Bipolaris zizaniae (Y. Nisik.) Shoemaker, a fungus.

One commenter stated that L. fulica is a high-risk pest, and could cause significant damage to domestic agriculture if it became established throughout the United States. The commenter opined we should therefore not authorize the importation of Oncidium spp. orchids in approved growing media because of this plant pest risk.

We agree that L. fulica is a high risk pest. However, if the provisions of the proposed rule are adhered to, there is a negligible risk that L. fulica will be introduced into the United States through the importation of Oncidium spp. orchids in approved growing media from Taiwan.

One commenter stated that several of the pests that were listed on the pest list, but not identified as quarantine pests, are known to occur in Hawaii. The commenter pointed out that APHIS' regulations in 7 CFR 318.13-1 impose a general prohibition on the interstate movement of plants for planting from Hawaii in order to prevent the introduction or further dissemination of plant pests within the United States. The commenter further pointed out that § 318.13-1 refers to this prohibition as a quarantine. The commenter concluded that, because of this quarantine, all plant pests of Oncidium spp. orchids that occur in Hawaii are quarantine pests. The commenter asked us to reevaluate the pest list in light of this consideration, and to revise the list of quarantine pests of Oncidium spp. orchids that occur in Taiwan and potentially could follow the pathway on Oncidium spp. orchids in approved growing media accordingly.

While we agree with the commenter that § 318.13-1 imposes a general quarantine on the interstate movement of plants for planting from Hawaii, including the interstate movement of Oncidium spp. orchids, we disagree that this means that all plant pests of Oncidium spp. orchids that occur in Hawaii are therefore quarantine plant pests. As we mentioned above, in order to meet our definition of a quarantine plant pest, a plant pest that is present in the United States must not be widely distributed and must be officially controlled. The general quarantine in § 318.13-1 does not constitute an official control program of all plant pests that occur in Hawaii.

The PRA also analyzed the likelihood that each of the 14 quarantine pests listed above would be introduced into the United States through the importation of Oncidium spp. orchids in approved growing media from Taiwan, as well as the consequences of such introduction.

One commenter stated that the PRA should be revised to evaluate the likelihood that snails and slugs in the families of Achatinidae, Succineidae, Philomycidae, Subulinidae, Veronicellidae, Camanidae, Helicarionidae, and Ariophantidae that occur in Taiwan will follow the pathway on Oncidium spp. orchids in approved growing media into the United States, as well as the consequences of such introduction.

The PRA contained an evaluation of the likelihood that quarantine snails and slugs that occur in Taiwan and are associated with Oncidium spp. orchids will follow the pathway on Oncidium spp. orchids in approved growing media to the United States. If the snails or slugs were considered to potentially follow the pathway, the PRA evaluated the likelihood of their introduction into the United States through this pathway, and the consequences of this introduction. However, evaluating the likelihood and consequences of the introduction into the United States of snails and slugs that occur in Taiwan and are associated with Oncidium spp. orchids, but are not of quarantine significance, is inconsistent with IPPC standards, as well as our own PRA guidelines. Moreover, evaluating the likelihood and consequences of introduction of quarantine snails and slugs that occur in Taiwan but are not associated with Oncidium spp.orchids is unnecessary. Such snails and slugs will not follow the pathway on Oncidium spp. orchids in approved growing media to the United States.

Several commenters stated that the PRA should have evaluated the likelihood of introduction and establishment in Hawaii of all plant pests on the pest list that could potentially follow the pathway on Oncidium spp. orchids and are not known to occur in Hawaii, regardless of whether the plant pests are of quarantine significance.

The PRA evaluated the likelihood of introduction and establishment in Hawaii of all quarantine plant pests that could potentially follow the pathway on Oncidium spp. orchids in approved growing media to the United States, as well as the consequences of such establishment. Evaluating the likelihood and consequences of establishment in Hawaii of plant pests that could potentially follow the pathway on Oncidium spp. into the United States but are not quarantine plant pests is inconsistent with IPPC standards, as well as our own PRA guidelines.

One commenter assumed that it was incumbent on the State of Hawaii to conduct an evaluation of the likelihood and consequences of establishment in Hawaii of plant pests that could potentially follow the pathway on Oncidium spp. into the United States but are not quarantine plant pests, but stated that, if the State were to conduct such an evaluation and identify potentially significant adverse consequences, the State had no recourse under the PPA to request Federal restrictions on the movement of Oncidium spp. orchids in approved growing media from Taiwan into Hawaii.

We disagree with the commenter. Pursuant to section 7711 of the PPA, APHIS has established the Federally Recognized State Managed Phytosanitary Program (FRSMP). Under the program, States may petition APHIS to recognize State-managed phytosanitary programs that are developed to eradicate, exclude, or contain plant pests that are of limited distribution within that State and that APHIS does not consider to be of quarantine significance.5 If APHIS grants a State's FRSMP petition, when we determine that an article imported into the United States is infested with a FRSMP pest and destined for the State that submitted the petition, we will take appropriate remedial measures to address this plant pest risk.

Finally, a commenter who co-authored an article 6 referred to in this section of the PRA stated that we had cited the article in an erroneous manner. Whereas we suggested that the article indicates that approved growing media are not a conducive host for snails, the commenter stated that Hollingsworth and Sewake only evaluated the growing media in and of themselves, and not when they are used in association with plants for planting. The commenter stated that Hollingsworth and Sewake in fact included evidence suggesting that snail eggs can remain viable on coir, which is listed in § 319.37-8 as an approved growing medium, when the coir is used as a growing medium for orchids.

We agree that we should not have cited the article as evidence that approved growing media are not a conducive host for snails. We also agree that Hollingsworth and Sewake provides evidence that snail eggs can remain viable on coir, when coir is used as a growing medium for orchids. For these reasons, we will not cite the article in future PRAs as evidence that approved growing media are not a conducive host for snails.

However, Hollingsworth and Sewake did not evaluate growing media used in connection with the importation of plants for planting in accordance with § 319.37-8(e), but rather growing media that are either located in the natural environment of Hawaii or commercially produced in Hawaii and available to Hawaiian producers. There is no evidence that growing media used in connection with the importation of plants for planting in accordance with § 319.37-8(e) is a conducive host for snail eggs, or that immature snails could follow the pathway on approved growing media imported to the United States in accordance with § 319.37-8(e).

We proposed that the Oncidium spp. orchids would have to be grown in a greenhouse in which sanitary procedures adequate to exclude quarantine pests are always employed. We proposed that, at a minimum, the greenhouse would have to be free from sand and soil, have screenings with openings of not more than 0.6 mm on all vents and openings except entryways, have entryways equipped with automatic closing doors, regularly clean and disinfect floors, benches, and tools, and use only rainwater that has been boiled or pasteurized, clean well water, or with potable water to water the plants.

One commenter expressed concern that screenings with openings of 0.6 mm would not preclude T. palmi from entering the greenhouses. The commenter cited studies indicating that 40 to 50 percent of T. palmi that attempt to pass through such an opening can do so.

We agree that screenings with openings of 0.6 mm may not preclude all T. palmi from entering the greenhouse. However, in order to comply with the provisions of the systems approach, growers will have to employ sanitary procedures that are jointly sufficient to exclude quarantine pests from the Oncidium spp. orchids intended for export to the United States. Accordingly, growers in areas where T. palmi are present will be expected to develop a pest management plan for T. palmi to address incursions of this pest into the greenhouse; the plan must have sufficient safeguards to prevent Oncidium spp. orchids intended for export to the United States from becoming infested with T. palmi.

One commenter assumed that certain growers would have to implement such pest management plans in order for their greenhouses to always employ sanitary procedures adequate to exclude quarantine pests from the Oncidium spp. orchids grown in the greenhouses. However, the commenter expressed concern that growers may not be able to implement or maintain mitigations specified in the plans, or may not be able to identify equivalent mitigations if the initial mitigations prove insufficient, without guidance or oversight from individuals with phytosanitary training.

Under paragraph (e)(2) of § 319.37-8, the NPPO of Taiwan must enter into an agreement with APHIS to enforce the export program for Oncidium spp. orchids in approved growing media to the United States, and each grower who wishes to export Oncidium spp. orchids must enter into an agreement with the NPPO of Taiwan. In this latter agreement, the NPPO of Taiwan will specify how the producer may meet the requirements of § 319.37-8, and will require the grower to agree to allow the NPPO of Taiwan access to greenhouses at any time to monitor compliance with the agreement and the provisions of § 319.37-8. Because of these requirements, growers will have the oversight and guidance of the NPPO of Taiwan to assess the efficacy of their pest management plans.

One commenter stated that APHIS should conduct monitoring of the development and implementation of these pest management plans, in addition to the NPPO of Taiwan.

We reserve the right to conduct such monitoring. Additionally, as we discuss below, APHIS inspectors may inspect the orchids prior to export. However, we do not consider it necessary for us to require APHIS to monitor the development and implementation of each pest management plan. For other export programs for plants and plant products from Taiwan to the United States, we have exercised joint monitoring responsibilities with the NPPO of Taiwan, and we have not encountered any issues that suggest we should modify this practice.

Several commenters surmised that most pest management plans would include the application of pesticides. They stated that Taiwan authorizes the use of pesticides that are prohibited for use within the United States, and that are significantly more potent than pesticides used within the United States. The commenters expressed concern that certain quarantine plant pests of Oncidium spp. orchids that occur in Taiwan may have developed tolerances to U.S. pesticides.

The commenter assumes that quarantine plant pests will be introduced into the United States through the importation of Oncidium spp. orchids in approved growing media from Taiwan. As we stated previously in this document, if the provisions of the systems approach are adhered to, there is a negligible risk that this will occur.

Additionally, we have no evidence that any of the quarantine plant pests of Oncidium spp. that are known to occur in Taiwan and may follow the pathway on Oncidium spp. orchids in approved growing media to the United States are resistant to U.S. pesticides.

We proposed that the orchids would have to be inspected in the greenhouse and found free from evidence of quarantine pests by an APHIS inspector or an inspector of the NPPO of Taiwan no more than 30 days prior to the date of export to the United States.

Several commenters stated that visual inspections, in and of themselves, are not sufficient to address the quarantine plant pest risk associated with the importation of Oncidium spp. orchids from Taiwan.

We agree. This is why we proposed to require the orchids to be produced in accordance with the systems approach of § 319.37-8(e).

Several commenters stated visual inspections are not always able to detect signs of bacterial or viral infection. The commenters suggested that the orchids should have to be tested for bacterial and viral pathogens prior to export to the United States.

We do not consider viral testing to be necessary. The PRA did not identify any quarantine viruses that occur in Taiwan and are associated with Oncidium spp. orchids.

Although we did identify one quarantine bacterium, P. cypripedii, to exist in Taiwan and potentially follow the pathway on Oncidium spp. orchids to the United States, inspection is not the sole mitigation for P. cypripedii within the systems approach. We also require the orchids to be grown on benches raised at least 46 centimeters off the ground; to be watered only with rainwater that has been boiled or pasteurized, with clean well water, or with potable water; to be rooted and grown in approved media; and to be grown in greenhouses that are free from sand and soil. Because P. cypripedii is primarily spread through compost or soil admixed with plant debris, as well as water contaminated with soil, these mitigations are jointly sufficient to preclude P. cypripedii from being introduced to the orchids, and we do not consider testing for P. cypripedii to be necessary.

One commenter pointed out that the RMD that accompanied the proposed rule appeared to require growers to employ bactericides for Oncidium spp. orchids that are determined to be infected with P. cypripedii. The commenter stated that bactericides are not effective mitigations for plants that are visibly infected with P. cypripedii. The commenter suggested that plants at a greenhouse that are visibly infected with P. cypripedii should be removed from the greenhouse and destroyed.

We agree with the commenter. In the event that Oncidium spp. orchids infected with P. cypripedii are detected at the greenhouse, these plants must be removed from the greenhouse and destroyed. We note, however, that we consider it unlikely that Oncidium spp. orchids at these greenhouses will become infected with P. cypripedii, for the reasons specified immediately above.

As we mentioned earlier in this document, we noted that lots of 13 or more Oncidium spp. orchids in approved growing media from Taiwan would have to be imported to a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) plant inspection station for entry into the United States.

Several commenters asked that we explain the inspection protocol at plant inspection stations.

At least 2 percent of the plants in each consignment of Oncidium spp. orchids in growing media will be inspected for plant pests, as well as signs and symptoms of such pests. Inspecting 2 percent of the plants will detect plant pest infestation in 5 percent of the lot with 95 percent confidence. We note, moreover, that we may set a higher inspection rate, as warranted.

If there are any pests detected, or any signs or symptoms of pests, inspectors at the stations will have recourse to pest identifiers and diagnostic testing to positively identify the pests. APHIS will take appropriate remedial measures if any consignments are determined to be infested with quarantine pests.

Finally, one commenter stated that the provisions of the proposed rule did not comply with the intent of Executive Order 13112, which instructs Federal agencies not to carry out actions that the agencies believe are likely to result in the introduction of invasive species.

The commenter's stated assumptions were that the provisions of the rule would not mitigate for T. palmi, that quarantine viral pathogens would follow the pathway on Oncidium spp. orchids in approved growing media from Taiwan, and that visual inspection would be the sole mitigation for the quarantine pests identified by the PRA as potentially following the pathway on Oncidium spp. orchids in approved growing media from Taiwan.

For the reasons discussed previously in this document, we regard these assumptions to be incorrect.

A number of commenters drew parallels between this proposed rule and a previous rule (69 FR 24916-24936, Docket No. 98-038-5) that authorized the importation of Phalaenopsis spp. orchids in approved growing media from Taiwan. The commenters stated that, for that rule, APHIS had grossly underestimated the number of Phalaenopsis spp. orchids in approved growing media that would be imported into the United States annually. Several of the commenters stated that the volume of imports had overwhelmed APHIS' capacity to inspect the Phalaenopsis spp. orchid shipments. Several of the commenters also stated that a disproportionate amount of the Phalaenopsis spp. orchids in approved growing media exported to the United States have been infested with quarantine plant pests, including a number of quarantine plant pests that we had not considered likely to follow the pathway on Phalaenopsis spp. orchids to the United States. Similarly, several commenters stated that the importation of Phalaenopsis spp. orchids in growing media had resulted in the introduction of plant pests into the United States. Given these considerations, the commenters stated that the systems approach in § 319.37-8 appears to be ineffective for orchids from Taiwan, and inquired on what basis we assumed that the number of Oncidium spp. orchids from Taiwan in approved growing media imported annually to the United States would be significantly fewer than the number of Phalaenopsis spp. orchids from Taiwan imported annually; on what basis we assumed that we have sufficient resources to inspect shipments of Oncidium spp. orchids in approved growing media at plant inspection stations; and on what basis we concluded that the importation of Oncidium spp. orchids in approved growing media from Taiwan into the United States would not result in the introduction of plant pests into the United States.

We consider the export market for Phalaenopsis spp. orchids from Taiwan to be significantly different from the export market for Oncidium spp. orchids from Taiwan. For the latter genus, Taiwan has a large and established market in Japan, and would have to divert a significant amount of their current exports from Japan to the United States for the number of Oncidium spp. orchids in approved growing media exported to the United States annually to be commensurate with the number of Phalaenopsis spp. orchids exported to the United States annually. We do not consider such diversion likely, and discuss the matter at greater length in the economic analysis that accompanies this final rule.

We disagree with the commenters who stated that we have lacked sufficient resources to inspect Phalaenopsis spp. orchids in approved growing media from Taiwan. Since we authorized their importation into the United States, we have inspected all shipments of Phalaenopsis spp. orchids in approved growing media in accordance with the inspection protocol discussed earlier in this document. Accordingly, even if import levels of Oncidium spp. in approved growing media from Taiwan were to be equivalent to those of Phalaenopsis spp. in approved growing media—a scenario that, again, we regard to be unlikely—we would have sufficient resources to inspect all consignments of Oncidium spp. in approved growing media exported to the United States.

We also disagree with the commenters who stated that the number of Phalaenopsis spp. orchids in approved growing media that have been determined to be infested with quarantine pests has been disproportionately high. Since we authorized the importation of Phalaenopsis spp. orchids in approved growing media from Taiwan, an average of 23 consignments have been determined to be infested annually. Insofar as an estimated 20 million Phalaenopsis spp. orchids in approved growing media are exported from Taiwan to the United States each year, we do not consider this number to be statistically significant or disproportionate, or to provide a basis for questioning the efficacy of the systems approach in § 319.37-8 with regard to the importation of orchids from Taiwan.

Finally, we have no evidence that any plant pests have been introduced into the United States through the importation of Phalaenopsis spp. orchids in growing media from Taiwan.

One commenter stated that a 2007 survey of Phalaenopsis growers in Taiwan found that more than 50 percent had orchids that were determined to be infected with viral or bacterial pathogens. The commenter asked us why we considered Oncidium spp. orchids produced for the export program to the United States to be unlikely to become infected with bacterial or viral plant pathogens.

We have confidence that the list of viral and bacterial pathogens of Oncidium spp. orchids in the PRA is complete, and thus that we have correctly identified the likelihood that Oncidium spp. orchids from Taiwan could become infected with viral or bacterial plant pests. If the conclusions of our PRA are accurate, then the provisions of the proposed rule, which were based on these conclusions, adequately address the viral and bacterial plant pest risk associated with the importation into the United States of Oncidium spp. orchids in approved growing media from Taiwan.

We do not consider the survey referenced by the commenter to call into question the accuracy of our PRA; only Phalaenopsis spp. orchid growers in Taiwan were surveyed. Nor do we consider it to call into question the efficacy of the systems approach in § 319.37-8(e). The survey appears to have surveyed all Phalaenopsis spp. orchid growers in Taiwan, and not merely those associated with the export program for Phalaenopsis spp. orchids in approved growing media to the United States.

Finally, one commenter requested that “all of the pleadings and comments from the 2007 HOGA (Hawai'i Orchid Growers Association) versus USDA legal challenge on the importation of Taiwan Phalaenopsis” be included in the administrative record for the proposed rule.

In the lawsuit referenced by the commenter, which was commenced in 2005, HOGA challenged actions related to our consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) regarding our 2004 final rule authorizing the importation of Phalaenopsis spp. orchids in approved growing media from Taiwan into the United States. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment in favor of USDA and FWS, and dismissed the HOGA case in 2006. That decision was affirmed by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2007.

The pleadings and comments from the HOGA lawsuit predate, and do not address, the proposed rule regarding the importation into the United States of Oncidium spp. orchids in approved growing media from Taiwan. Moreover, it is premature and unnecessary to determine the scope of the documents that should be included in an administrative record for this rule that may be compiled in the future.

In support of the proposed rule, we prepared an initial economic analysis and draft environmental assessment. We received several comments regarding both documents. These are discussed in the final economic analysis and environmental assessment that accompany this rule.

In preparing this final rule, we noticed an error in § 319.7-4, which contains general conditions regarding the withdrawal, cancellation, and revocation of various permits for plants and plant products.

Paragraph (b) of that section deals with cancellation of a permit that has been issued to a permittee, at the permittee's request. However, the section had erroneously stated that, upon receipt of such a request, APHIS will withdraw the individual's application, rather than cancel his or her permit. We have corrected this error.

Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, with the changes discussed in this document.

This 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. The analysis is summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available on the Regulations.gov Web site (see footnote 1 in this document for a link to Regulations.gov) or by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

APHIS is amending the regulations in 7 CFR 319.37-8(e), which restrict the importation of orchids of the genus Oncidium to those plants that are free of sand, soil, earth, and other growing media. This rule amends the regulations to include Oncidium spp. from Taiwan on the list of plants that may enter the United States established in approved growing media, subject to specified growing, inspection, and certification requirements.

Eliminating the requirement that Oncidium spp. from Taiwan must be bare-rooted is expected to increase the number and quality of these plants imported by U.S. growers, who then finish the plants for the retail market. It is also expected to reduce the production time for growers. However, gains due to improved product quality and reduced production time are likely to lead to compensating price adjustments, assuming a competitive market.

Oncidium spp. represent an unknown but small portion of the orchid market and orchid trade. While many of the entities that may be affected by the final rule, such as importers of orchids for the potted plant market, are small by Small Business Administration (SBA) standards, we expect any impact to be minimal, given Oncidium spp. having a small share of the U.S. orchid market and a small share of total orchid imports from Taiwan. Allowing importation of Oncidium spp. from Taiwan in growing media could also lead to an expanded market for this genus. The variety's range of unusual appearances appeals to collectors and other niche markets, but could also result in mass market demand.

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

This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

An environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact have been prepared for this final rule. The environmental assessment provides a basis for the conclusion that the importation into the United States of Oncidium spp. orchids in approved growing media from Taiwan, subject to a required systems approach, will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment in the United States. Based on the finding of no significant impact, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that an environmental impact statement need not be prepared.

The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact were prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), (2) regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).

The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact may be viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site. Copies of the environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact are also available for public inspection at USDA, room 1141, South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Persons wishing to inspect copies are requested to call ahead on (202) 799-7039 to facilitate entry into the reading room. In addition, copies may be obtained by writing to the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

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:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2004-20-14, Amendment 39-13819 (69 FR 60809, October 13, 2004), which superseded AD 2001-03-14, Amendment 39-12118 (66 FR 10957, February 21, 2001). AD 2004-20-14 applied to all Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R (collectively called Model A300-600) series airplanes; and all Model A300 B4 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 14, 2015 (80 FR 27607). The NPRM was prompted by a determination that the inspection compliance time and repetitive inspection interval must be reduced to allow timely detection of cracks in the splice fitting at fuselage FR 47. The NPRM proposed to continue to require repetitive inspections to detect cracking of the splice fitting at fuselage FR 47 between stringers 24 and 26 (left- and right-hand sides), and corrective actions if necessary. The NPRM also proposed to reduce the inspection compliance time and repetitive inspection intervals, and add Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes to the applicability. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the splice fitting at fuselage FR 47; such cracking could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0184R1, dated August 22, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R (collectively called Model A300-600) series airplanes; all Model A300 B4 series airplanes; and all Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-1417-0002.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (80 FR 27607, May 14, 2015) and the FAA's response to each comment.

United Parcel Service (UPS) and FedEx Express requested that we revise the compliance times in paragraph (k) of the proposed AD (80 FR 27607, May 14, 2015) to match the compliance times in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6123, Revision 06, dated September 28, 2011, and EASA AD 2013-0184R1, dated August 22, 2013.

We agree with the commenters' requests to revise the compliance times in paragraph (k) of this AD to reflect the compliance times in EASA AD 2013-0184R1, dated August 22, 2013. We have revised paragraph (k) of this AD accordingly. The changes extend the inspection interval and do not add an additional burden on operators.

UPS requested that we revise paragraph (k) of the proposed AD (80 FR 27607, May 14, 2015) to retain the inspection intervals in AD 2004-20-14, Amendment 39-13819 (69 FR 60809, October 13, 2004), until the airplanes have reached their design service goal (DSG). UPS stated that acceleration of the inspection interval on airplanes that have less than 33 percent of the original DSG does not enhance safety. UPS explained that the proposed inspection interval reduction introduces additional opportunities for fastener hole damage due to the inspection process, thus increasing the risk for subsequent fatigue damage.

We disagree with the commenter's request. Since AD 2004-20-14, Amendment 39-13819 (69 FR 60809, October 13, 2004), was issued, Airbus conducted a fleet survey and an analysis to extend the DSG. In consideration of this information, we determined that the inspection interval and thresholds needed to be reduced to support timely detection of cracks. The Airbus analysis for the extension of the DSG and other data was used to determine the compliance thresholds and intervals for this AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

FedEx Express requested that we revise the flight-cycle compliance time in paragraph (k)(1) of the proposed AD (80 FR 27607, May 14, 2015) from 2,000 flight cycles to 2,200 flight cycles so that the inspections can consistently be performed at the same interval as a C-check. FedEx Express stated that it considers the 2,200-flight-cycle interval to be conservative. FedEx Express submitted service experience from the previous inspections showing relatively few findings.

We do not agree with the commenter's request. The inspections are dependent upon various configurations and average flight times (AFTs). The commenter did not identify the applicable configuration for the requested 2,200-flight-cycle interval. Operators may request approval of a different interval under the provisions of paragraph (o)(1) of this AD if sufficient specific information is submitted to substantiate that the compliance time will provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

UPS request that we revise the compliance times to remove the AFT classifications. UPS stated that it considers that the inspection interval difference with regard to the AFT adds a level of compliance complication that does not enhance fleet safety.

We disagree with the commenter's request. The compliance time thresholds and intervals using AFTs were developed by Airbus using fleet experience and analysis. Once we issue this AD, the commenter may request approval of a different interval under the provisions of paragraph (o)(1) of this AD. Sufficient data must be submitted to substantiate that the compliance time will provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

We reviewed the available data, including the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 27607, May 14, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 27607, May 14, 2015).

Airbus has issued the following service information:

• Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0350, Revision 03, including Appendix 03, dated July 26, 2007. This service bulletin describes procedures for inspections to detect cracking of the splice fitting at fuselage FR 47 between stringers 24 and 26, and corrective actions.

• Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6123, Revision 06, dated September 28, 2011. This service bulletin describes procedures for inspections for cracking of the splice fitting at fuselage FR 47 between stringers 24 and 26, and corrective actions.

This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

We estimate that this AD affects 72 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it will take up to 14 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $85,680, or $1,190 per product.

In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will take up to 204 work-hours and require parts costing up to $37,000, for a cost of up to $54,340 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2015-1417; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

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

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 24, 2015 (80 FR 36258) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by a report of a crack of the forward leg of the left front spar lower chord and cracks on the lower wing skin at three fastener holes common to the nacelle outboard side load fitting. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for cracks on the front spar lower chord, inspar skin, and wing skin, and corrective action if necessary. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

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

Boeing stated that it concurs with the NPRM.

Southwest Airlines (SWA) requested clarification whether the installation of Aviation Partners Boeing (APB) Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/ebd1cec7b301293e86257cb30045557a/$FILE/ST01219SE.pdf) has any affect to the ability of accomplishment of the action of this proposed AD (80 FR 36258, June 24, 2015). APB stated that the installation of winglets per STC ST01219SE does not affect the accomplishment of the manufacturer's service instructions.

We concur with APB's comment and agree to clarify. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD (80 FR 36258, June 24, 2015) as paragraph (c)(1) and added new paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST01219SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/ebd1cec7b301293e86257cb30045557a/$FILE/ST01219SE.pdf) does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

SWA requested that we add instructions to paragraph (i) of the proposed AD (80 FR 36258, June 24, 2015) to specify that important CDCCL information must be observed during access and close-up while performing the actions specified in paragraph (i) of the proposed AD. SWA explained that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1323, dated December 5, 2014, does not contain any references to CDCCLs, despite the required access to the fuel tank, in order to perform either option 1 or option 2 non-destructive test inspection requirements. SWA stated that the access and close-up steps indicate, as a reference, the maintenance planning document (section 4), which does not provide a clear path to the airplane maintenance manual section that addresses CDCCL requirements.

We agree with the commenter's request. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1323, dated December 5, 2014, does not contain any references to CDCCLs that are part of the airworthiness limitations (AWLs). All applicable AWLs must still be observed while performing the actions mandated by this AD. We have revised paragraph (i) of this AD to state that while accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (i) of this AD, operators must ensure that all applicable CDCCLs are complied with.

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Αre 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.

We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1323, dated December 5, 2014. The service information describes procedures for repetitive inspections for cracks on the left and right wing front spar lower chord, inspar skin, and wing skin, and corrective action. The 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 331 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify the route structure in the western U.S. to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the NAS.

On June 5, 2015, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish 13 RNAV Q-routes and one T-route originating in Los Angeles Air Route Traffic Control Center's (ARTCC) airspace (80 FR 32074). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

The development of new RNAV Standard Instrument Departure (SID) and Standard Terminal Arrival (STAR) routes requires incorporation of these Q routes into the NAS Route Structure in order to maximize the benefits of increased safety in high volume en route sectors.

The Los Angeles Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) currently does not have routes that join the Performance Based Navigation (PBN) arrival and departure procedures. The existing conventional jet route structure does not serve the new SID/STAR designs. Routes made up of ground based navigational aids are not capable of delivering aircraft onto the RNAV based arrival and departure procedures in an efficient manner. Developing these predictable and repeatable flight paths through a complex area confined by restricted areas will improve throughput and safety for Los Angeles ARTCC.

This first phase of a two phase project will align a network of Q-Routes with the new SIDs and STARs. The Q-Route structure is projected to optimize descent/climb profiles to/from several airports in southern California and create segregated arrival/departure paths to reduce airspace complexity.

High altitude United States RNAV routes are published in paragraph 2006 and high altitude Canadian RNAV routes are published in paragraph 2007 of FAA Order 7400.9Z dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The high altitude United States RNAV routes (Q-routes) and high altitude Canadian RNAV routes listed in this document would be subsequently published in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Z, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This rule has several changes from the NPRM. First, the NPRM proposed to establish a low altitude RNAV route, T-326. Due to additional coordination required for low altitude routes, T-326 will not be included in this final rule, but will be finalized at a later date. Second, in the state of Nevada, BEALE waypoint was moved from lat. 36°10′56.60″ N., long. 114°49′34.81″ W. to lat. 36°10′56.83″ N., long. 114°49′34.09″ W., to properly connect to a Standard Instrument Departure procedure. In the state of Idaho, HELLS waypoint is removed from Q-73. Also in Idaho, CORDU waypoint is moved from lat. 48°10′46.10″ N., long. 116°40′21.84″ W., to lat. 48°10′46.41″ N., long. 116°40′21.84″ W., to align with a future polar Q route. And finally, LAKKR waypoint, listed under Q-73, was erroneously shown in the state of Arizona, but is actually located in Nevada.

The FAA is amending Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish U.S. RNAV routes Q-70, Q-73, Q-74, Q-78, Q-86, Q-88, Q-90, Q-94, Q-96, Q-98, Q-114, Q-168, and Q-842, which is an extension of a current Canadian RNAV route and therefore retains the Canadian numbering. The routes will connect to new SID and STAR procedures as designed in the Southern California area. The routes are outlined below.

Q-70: Q-70 is from the HAILO, CA, waypoint (WP) to the SAKES, UT, WP to support departures from Los Angeles basin airports to the northeast.

Q-73: Q-73 is established from the MOMAR, CA, WP to the CORDU, ID, WP to accommodate arrivals to San Diego airport.

Q-74: Q-74 is from the NATEE, NV, WP to the DEANN, UT, WP and supports arrivals to John Wayne, Long Beach and Ontario airports from the northeast.

Q-78: Q-78 is established from the MARUE, NV, WP to the TOADD, AZ, WP to support arrivals to John Wayne, Long Beach and Ontario airports from the east and northeast.

Q-86: Q-86 is from the TTRUE, AZ, WP to the PLNDL, AZ, WP for arrivals to San Diego and Ontario airports from the east.

Q-88: Q-88 is established from the HAKMN, NV, WP to the CHESZ, UT, WP to support Los Angeles airport arrivals from the northeast.

Q-90: Q-90 is from the DNERO, CA, WP to the JASSE, AZ, WP and will be the primary RNAV route to Los Angeles from Denver ARTCC.

Q-94: Q-94 is from the WELUM, NV, WP to the ROOLL, AZ, WP to support Denver ARTCC arrivals to Burbank, Van Nuys, Camarillo and Oxnard airports.

Q-96: Q-96 is established from the PURSE, NV, WP to the KIMMR, UT, WP to support arrivals to Burbank, Van Nuys, Camarillo and Oxnard airports from the Salt Lake ARTCC.

Q-98: Q-98 is from the HAKMN, NV, WP to the PEEWE, AZ, WP to support Denver ARTCC arrivals to Los Angeles and San Diego airports.

Q-114: Q-114 extends from the NATEE, NV, WP to the BUGGG, UT, WP to support Salt Lake ARTCC arrivals to Long Beach, Ontario and Orange County airports.

Q-168: Q-168 extends from the FNNDA, CA, WP to the JASSE, AZ, WP and will be the primary arrival route for Los Angeles airport from the Denver ARTCC.

Q-842: Existing Canadian route Q-842 is extended south into U.S. airspace. The route will begin at the BEALE, NV, WP and extend north to the existing TOVUM, AB, WP in Canada. This will provide routing for departures from Los Angeles, Long Beach, Ontario and Orange County airports to airports in Calgary and Edmonton, Canada.

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

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policy and Procedures” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class E airspace at Lynchburg Regional-Preston Glenn Field Airport and Falwell Airport, Lynchburg, VA.

In a review of the airspace, the FAA found the geographic coordinates for Lynchburg Regional-Preston Glenn Field Airport and Falwell Airport as published in FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, do not match the FAA's charting information. This administrative change coincides with the FAA's aeronautical database for Class E Surface Airspace.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002 of FAA Order 7400.9Z dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by adjusting the geographic coordinates at Lynchburg Regional-Preston Glenn Field Airport and Falwell Airport, Lynchburg, VA, to be in concert with the FAA's aeronautical database.

This is an administrative change and does not affect the boundaries, or operating requirements of the airspace, therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.

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

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class E airspace at the New York airports listed in this final rule.

In a review of the airspace, the FAA found the airspace description for Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport, Ithaca, NY, formerly Tompkins County Airport, and Kingston VORTAC, Poughkeepsie, NY, as published in FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, does not match the FAA's charting information. This administrative change coincides with the FAA's aeronautical database for Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to a Class D Surface Area.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 6004 of FAA Order 7400.9Z dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by eliminating the NOTAM information that reads “This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and time established in advance by Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.” from the regulatory text of the Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D at Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport, Ithaca, NY; and the Kingston VORTAC, Poughkeepsie, NY. Also, as Dutchess County Airport, Poughkeepsie, NY, is supported by the Kingston VORTAC, it is included in the VORTAC designation.

Additionally, the geographic coordinates for the listed navaids and Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport are updated to be in concert with the FAA's aeronautical database. The FAA also recognizes the airport's name change from Tompkins County Airport, Ithaca, NY, to Ithaca Tomkins Regional Airport, Ithaca, NY.

This is an administrative change amending the description for the above New York airports, to be in concert with the FAAs aeronautical database, and does not affect the boundaries, or operating requirements of the airspace, therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.

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

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends controlled airspace at Minot International Airport, Minot, ND.

In a review of the airspace, the FAA found the airspace for Minot International Airport, Minot, ND as published in FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, does not require part time status. This is an administrative change removing the part time NOTAM information from the legal description for the airport, and also amends the geographic coordinates of the airport.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002 and 6004, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Z dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This action amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by eliminating the NOTAM information that reads, “This Class E airspace is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.” From the regulatory text of Class E surface area airspace and Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D, at Minot International Airport, Minot, ND. Additionally, the geographic coordinates of the airport are being updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

This is an administrative change amending the description for Minot International Airport to be in concert with the FAA's aeronautical database, and does not affect the boundaries, or operating requirements of the airspace; therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.

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

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends controlled airspace at Rapid City Regional Airport, Rapid City, SD.

In a review of the airspace, the FAA found the airspace for Rapid City Regional Airport, Rapid City, SD, as published in FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, does not require part time status. This is an administrative change removing the part time NOTAM information from the legal description for the airport.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002 and 6004 of FAA Order 7400.9Z dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This action amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by eliminating the NOTAM information that reads, “This Class E airspace is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.” from the regulatory text of Class E surface area airspace, and Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D, at Rapid City Regional Airport, Rapid City, SD.

This is an administrative change amending the description for Rapid City Regional Airport to be in concert with the FAA's aeronautical database, and does not affect the boundaries, or operating requirements of the airspace; therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.

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

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Why is the Department promulgating this rule?

The Department of State (the Department) is amending the previous rule to alleviate fraud and security concerns that have developed subsequent to that rule's publication. The previous rule, 22 CFR 41.2(e)(1), allowed nationals of certain Caribbean countries, as well as nationals of certain other countries who have residence in such countries' territories in the Caribbean, to enter the United States as temporary agricultural workers without visas. The amended rule requires that temporary workers from these countries obtain H-2A visas to enter the United States.

Currently, British, French, and Netherlands nationals and nationals of Antigua, Barbados, Grenada, Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago, who have their residence in British, French, or Netherlands territory located in the adjacent islands of the Caribbean area or in Antigua, Barbados, Grenada, Jamaica, or Trinidad and Tobago, are not required to obtain visas before traveling to the United States as H-2A agricultural workers.

The amended rule requires these prospective H-2A agricultural workers to obtain a visa prior to traveling to the United States. Any spouses or children of these workers also will have to obtain a visa. To obtain a visa, these nonimmigrant aliens will have to be in possession of a valid passport, submit a visa application to and appear for an interview at a U.S. embassy or consulate, and undergo the Department's visa screening process.

Requiring these prospective H-2A agricultural workers to obtain visas will ensure that they are sufficiently screened prior to arrival in the United States. This will lessen the possibility that persons who pose security risks to the United States and other potential immigration violators may improperly gain admission to the United States. At the same time, requiring that these applicants appear before consular officers will provide greater opportunities to prescreen for potential employment fraud and will promote compliance with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Labor (DOL) H-2A rules.

The Department, in conjunction with DHS, has determined that the visa exemption provided a loophole that could potentially be exploited by terrorists and other persons seeking to engage in unlawful activities in the United States and threatens the security interests of the United States. This visa exemption is outdated in the post-9/11 environment and inconsistent with the visa requirement for other H-2A agricultural workers from other countries. The Department and DHS have determined that eliminating this visa exemption furthers the national security interests of the United States.

The application of the general visa requirement to the class of Caribbean agricultural workers described above will ensure that these applicants for admission, like other H-2A agricultural workers, are properly screened through the Department's visa issuance process prior to arrival in the United States. This will lessen the possibility that persons who pose security risks to the United States and other potential immigration violators may improperly gain admission to the United States.

Moreover, extending the visa requirement to these Caribbean H-2A agricultural workers will better ensure that such workers are protected from certain employment and recruitment-based abuses. It also will ensure that agricultural workers have been informed, and are aware of, their rights and responsibilities before departing from their home countries to engage in H-2A agricultural work.

Redesignated paragraph (e)(2)(iv) is being amended to reflect that The Royal Virgin Islands Police Department has been renamed the Royal Virgin Islands Police Force.

DHS is publishing a parallel amendment to 8 CFR 212.1(b).

The publication of this rule as an interim final rule, with provisions for post-promulgation public comments, is based on the good cause exception found in section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)). There is reasonable concern that publication of the rule as a proposed rule, which would permit continuation of the current visa exemption, could lead to an increase in applications for admission in bad faith by persons who would otherwise have been denied visas and are seeking to avoid the visa requirement and consular screening process during the period between the publication of a proposed and a final rule. Accordingly, the Department finds that it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to publish this rule with prior notice and comment period. Under the good cause exception, this rule is exempt from the notice and comment and delayed effective date requirements of the APA.

In addition, the Department is of the opinion that eliminating the visa exemption and requiring a visa for Caribbean H-2A agricultural workers, and the spouses or children accompanying or following these workers, is a foreign affairs function of the U.S. government. As this rule implements this function, the Department is of the opinion that, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), this rule is exempt from the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553, including the notice and comment and 30-day delayed effective date requirements. The Department is nevertheless providing the opportunity for the public to provide comments for 60 days.

Because this interim final rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553, it is exempt from the regulatory flexibility analysis requirements set forth at sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). Nonetheless, consistent with section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rulemaking regulates individual aliens who seek consideration for nonimmigrant visas and does not affect any small entities, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6).

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by state, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector. This rule will not result in any such expenditure, nor will it significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121.

The costs of this rulemaking are discussed in the companion DHS rule, RIN 1651-AB09, included elsewhere in this edition of the Federal Register. That discussion is incorporated by reference herein. The Department has reviewed the costs and benefits of this rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866 and has determined that the benefits of this interim final rule justify its costs.

The Department has considered this rule in light of Executive Order 13563, dated January 18, 2011, and affirms that this regulation is consistent with the guidance therein.

This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government; nor will the rule have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders 12372 and 13132.

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

The Department has reviewed this interim final rule in light of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.

This rule does not impose any new information collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35. The Department anticipates between 100 and 4,100 additional nonimmigrant visa applicants per year as a result of this rulemaking. The current burden for this information collection (OMB Control No. 1405-0182) is 13,875,345 hours, with 11,100,276 respondents. The burden per response is 75 minutes. The top estimate for the number of additional respondents would add approximately 5,000 hours to a burden that is almost 14 million hours. Therefore, the addition of these respondents does not significantly increase the burden associated with this information collection.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of State is amending 22 CFR part 41 to read as follows:

Background and Explanation of Provisions

Allocations of creditable foreign tax expenditures (“CFTEs”) do not have substantial economic effect, and accordingly a CFTE must be allocated in accordance with the partners' interests in the partnership. See § 1.704-1(b)(4)(viii). Section 1.704-1(b)(4)(viii) provides a safe harbor under which CFTE allocations are deemed to be in accordance with the partners' interests in the partnership. In general, the purpose of the safe harbor is to match allocations of CFTEs with the income to which the CFTEs relate.

In order to apply the safe harbor, a partnership must (1) determine the partnership's “CFTE categories,” (2) determine the partnership's net income in each CFTE category, and (3) allocate the partnership's CFTEs to each category. Section 1.704-1(b)(4)(viii)(c)(2) requires a partnership to assign its income to activities and provides for the grouping of a partnership's activities into one or more CFTE categories based generally on whether net income from the activities is allocated to partners in the same sharing ratios. Section 1.704-1(b)(4)(viii)(c)(3) provides rules for determining the partnership's net income (for U.S. federal income tax purposes) in a CFTE category, including rules for allocating and apportioning expenses, losses, and other deductions to gross income. Section 1.704-1(b)(4)(viii)(d) assigns CFTEs to the CFTE category that includes the related income under the principles of § 1.904-6, with certain modifications. In order to satisfy the safe harbor, partnership allocations of CFTEs in a CFTE category must be in proportion to the allocations of the partnership's net income in the CFTE category.

Section 1.704-1(b)(4)(viii)(c)(3)(i) of the current final regulations provides that a partnership determines its net income in a CFTE category by taking into account all partnership items attributable to the relevant activity or group of activities, including items of gross income, gain, loss, deduction, and expense, and items allocated pursuant to section 704(c). The current final regulations do not state whether an adjustment under section 743(b) is taken into account in computing the partnership's net income in a CFTE category.

In the case of a transfer of a partnership interest that results in an adjustment under section 743(b) (because the partnership has a section 754 election in effect, or because there is a substantial built-in loss (as defined in section 743(d)) in the partnership), the partnership must adjust the basis of partnership property with respect to the transferee partner only (a section 743(b) adjustment). No adjustment is made to the common basis of partnership property, and the section 743(b) adjustment has no effect on the partnership's computation of any item under section 703. § 1.743-1(j)(1).

The Treasury Department and the IRS believe that a transferee partner's section 743(b) adjustment with respect to its interest in a partnership should not be taken into account in computing such partnership's net income in a CFTE category because the basis adjustment is unique to the transferee partner and because the basis adjustment ordinarily would not be taken into account by a foreign jurisdiction in computing its foreign taxable base. As such, taking a transferee partner's section 743(b) adjustment into account for purposes of computing the partnership's net income in a CFTE category could change the partners' relative shares of net income in a CFTE category and their allocable shares of CFTEs under the safe harbor solely as a result of the transfer of the partnership interest and not as a result of a change to the allocation of any partnership items under the partnership agreement. Accordingly, § 1.704-1T(b)(4)(viii)(c)(3)(i) of these temporary regulations provides that, for purposes of computing a partnership's net income in a CFTE category, the partnership determines its items without regard to any section 743(b) adjustments that its partners may have to the basis of property of the partnership.

A partnership that is a transferee partner may have a section 743(b) adjustment in its capacity as a direct or indirect partner in a lower-tier partnership. Under § 1.704-1T(b)(4)(viii)(c)(3)(i), such section 743(b) adjustment of the partnership is taken into account in determining the partnership's net income in a CFTE category. Nevertheless, in the case of a section 743(b) adjustment of a partnership that is a transferee partner, it may be appropriate to alter the way in which the section 743(b) adjustment is taken into account in determining the partnership's net income in a CFTE category when the section 743(b) adjustment gives rise to basis differences subject to section 901(m). The Treasury Department and the IRS intend to address section 901(m) in a separate guidance project.

No inference is intended from § 1.704-1T(b)(4)(viii)(c)(3)(i) as to how a section 743(b) adjustment is taken into account for other federal income tax purposes. The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments regarding whether final regulations should provide further guidance on how to compute a partnership's net income in a CFTE category, including how other types of items or adjustments to distributive shares that are specific to a partner should be taken into account in computing a partnership's net income in a CFTE category (for example, where property is contributed with a built-in loss and the built-in loss is taken into account only in determining the amount of items allocated to the contributing partner under section 704(c)(1)(C)). The Treasury Department and the IRS also request comments on whether, and the extent to which, the application of the safe harbor should differ with respect to CFTEs that are determined by taking into account partner-specific adjustments that are similar to those that apply for U.S. tax purposes in computing the foreign taxable base of a partnership.

For purposes of the safe harbor, § 1.704-1(b)(4)(viii)(c)(3)(ii) provides, among other rules, a special rule that reduces the partnership's net income in a CFTE category to the extent foreign law allows a deduction for an allocation (or payment of an allocated amount) to a partner, for example, because foreign law characterizes a preferential allocation of gross income as deductible interest expense. The basis for this rule is that a CFTE category should not include income of the partnership that has not been included in a foreign taxable base due to the fact that an allocation (or payment of an allocated amount) to a partner of that income results in a foreign law deduction. Because the income out of which the allocation is made was not included in the taxable base of the foreign jurisdiction that allowed the deduction, no CFTEs are imposed on that income; therefore, the allocation of that income should not be taken into account in testing whether allocations of CFTEs of that jurisdiction match related income allocations for purposes of the safe harbor.

Deductible guaranteed payments under section 707(c) reduce the partnership's net income in a CFTE category. Therefore, in the case of a guaranteed payment that results in a deduction under both U.S. and foreign law, no special rule reducing the partnership's net income in a CFTE category is necessary. However, to the extent that foreign law does not allow a deduction for a guaranteed payment that is deductible under U.S. law, § 1.704-1(b)(4)(viii)(c)(3)(ii) provides another special rule that requires an upward adjustment to the partnership's net income in a CFTE category (this rule, together with the special rule described in the preceding paragraph, are referred to in this preamble as the “special rules”). Adding the amount of a guaranteed payment that is not deductible under foreign law to the partnership's net income in a CFTE category results in CFTEs attributable to tax imposed on the income out of which the guaranteed payment is made following the payment for purposes of the safe harbor. An additional rule in § 1.704-1(b)(4)(viii)(c)(4) treats the guaranteed payment as a distributive share of the partnership's net income in a CFTE category to the extent of the upward adjustment. Together, these rules for guaranteed payments provide a more appropriate matching under the safe harbor of CFTEs and the income to which they relate.

However, the current final regulations do not expressly address situations in which an allocation or distribution of an allocated amount or guaranteed payment gives rise to a deduction for purposes of one foreign tax, but is made out of income subject to another tax imposed by the same or a different foreign jurisdiction. For example, a partnership may make a preferential allocation of gross income that is deductible in the foreign jurisdiction in which the partnership is a resident (foreign jurisdiction X) but that is made out of income earned by a disregarded entity or branch owned by the partnership that is subject to net basis tax in the jurisdiction in which the disregarded entity or branch is located (foreign jurisdiction Y). In this case, the Treasury Department and the IRS are aware that some taxpayers have suggested that § 1.704-1(b)(4)(viii)(c)(3)(ii) may be interpreted to provide that the income related to the preferential allocation should not be included in a CFTE category because it is not included in the foreign jurisdiction X base, even though there are foreign jurisdiction Y CFTEs that clearly relate to the income out of which the preferential allocation is made. This interpretation is inconsistent with the purpose of the special rules to apply the safe harbor in a manner that matches income with the related CFTEs.

The special rules were not intended to permit taxpayers to adjust or fail to adjust income in a CFTE category in a manner that distorts a partner's share of the income to which the CFTEs assigned to that category relate. Therefore, these temporary regulations revise the special rules to address situations in which allocations (or distributions of allocated amounts) and guaranteed payments that give rise to foreign law deductions are made out of income with related CFTEs. Specifically, § 1.704-1T(b)(4)(viii)(c)(4)(ii) provides that a partnership's net income in a CFTE category from which a guaranteed payment that is not deductible in a foreign jurisdiction is made shall be increased by the amount of the guaranteed payment that is deductible for U.S. federal income tax purposes, and such amount shall be treated as an allocation to the recipient of the guaranteed payment for purposes of determining the partners' shares of income in the CFTE category, but only for purposes of testing allocations of CFTEs attributable to a foreign tax that does not allow a deduction for the guaranteed payment. However, for purposes of testing allocations of CFTEs attributable to a foreign tax that does allow a deduction for the guaranteed payment, a partnership's net income in a CFTE category is increased only to the extent that the amount of the guaranteed payment that is deductible for U.S. federal income tax purposes exceeds the amount allowed as a deduction for purposes of that foreign tax, and such excess is treated as an allocation to the recipient of the guaranteed payment for purposes of determining the partners' shares of income in the CFTE category.

Similarly, § 1.704-1T(b)(4)(viii)(c)(4)(iii) provides that, to the extent that a foreign tax allows a deduction from its taxable base for an allocation (or distribution of an allocated amount) to a partner, then solely for purposes of testing allocations of CFTEs attributable to that foreign tax, the partnership's net income in the CFTE category from which the allocation is made is reduced by the amount of the foreign law deduction, and that amount is not treated as an allocation for purposes of determining the partners' shares of income in the CFTE category. For purposes of testing allocations of CFTEs attributable to a foreign tax that does not allow a deduction for an allocation (or distribution of an allocated amount) to a partner, the partnership's net income in a CFTE category is not reduced.

Finally, the current final regulations provide that the adjustment to income attributable to an activity for a preferential allocation depends on whether the allocation of the item of income (or payment thereof) “results” in a deduction under foreign law. This rule was intended to apply even if the foreign law deduction occurred in a different taxable year (for example, because the foreign jurisdiction allowed a deduction only upon a subsequent payment of accrued interest). These temporary regulations at § 1.704-1T(b)(4)(viii)(c)(4)(ii) and (iii) clarify that a guaranteed payment or preferential allocation is considered deductible under foreign law for purposes of the special rules if the foreign jurisdiction allows a deduction from its taxable base either in the current year or in a different taxable year.

For taxable years beginning before January 1, 2012, the special rules under § 1.704-1(b)(4)(viii)(c)(3)(ii) included a cross-reference confirming that certain inter-branch payments that were described in § 1.704-1(b)(4)(viii)(d)(3) (the “inter-branch payment rule”) were not subject to the special rules. On February 14, 2012, temporary regulations (TD 9577) were published in the Federal Register (77 FR 8127) addressing situations in which foreign income taxes have been separated from the related income. As part of those regulations, the inter-branch payment rule was removed because it allowed taxpayers to separate foreign income taxes and related income. In conjunction with the removal of the inter-branch payment rule, the cross-reference to the eliminated rule was removed from § 1.704-1(b)(4)(viii)(c)(3)(ii).

The Treasury Department and the IRS have become aware that some taxpayers claim that the inclusion and subsequent removal of the cross-reference created uncertainty regarding the application of the special rules under § 1.704-1(b)(4)(viii)(c)(3)(ii) to disregarded payments among branches of a partnership. As explained above, the purpose of the special rules is to match preferential allocations and guaranteed payments to partners with CFTEs that relate to the income out of which the allocation or guaranteed payment is made, and also to ensure proper testing of CFTE allocations when no CFTEs relate to such income. The special rules accomplish this matching by treating preferential allocations and guaranteed payments as distributive shares of income, but only for purposes of allocating CFTEs attributable to taxes imposed by a foreign jurisdiction that does not allow deductions for such allocations and payments. Because an inter-branch payment is not made to a partner, it can never be treated as a distributive share, and is outside the scope of the special rules. By its terms, current § 1.704-1(b)(4)(viii)(c)(3)(ii) applies only to partnership allocations that are deductible under foreign law, guaranteed payments that are not deductible under foreign law, and (not discussed herein) income that is excluded from a foreign tax base as a result of the status of a partner. The inclusion and subsequent removal of the cross-reference did not change the purpose of current § 1.704-1(b)(4)(viii)(c)(3)(ii) or expand its scope to provide for reductions in income in a CFTE category if a partnership makes a disregarded payment that is deductible under foreign law. These regulations under § 1.704-1T(b)(4)(viii)(c)(4)(iii) clarify that the special rule for preferential allocations applies only to allocations (or distributions of allocated amounts) to a partner that are deductible under foreign law, and not to other items that give rise to deductions under foreign law. For example, the special rule does not apply to reduce income in a CFTE category by reason of a disregarded inter-branch payment, even if the income out of which the inter-branch payment is made is not subject to tax in any foreign jurisdiction.

In addition, the Treasury Department and the IRS are aware of transactions involving serial disregarded payments in which taxpayers take the position that withholding taxes assessed on the first payment in a series of back-to-back disregarded payments do not need to be apportioned among the CFTE categories that include the income out of which the payment is made. These regulations include new examples clarifying that under § 1.704-1(b)(4)(viii)(d)(1) withholding taxes must be apportioned among the CFTE categories that include the related income. See § 1.704-1T(b)(5) Example 36 and Example 37.

These regulations make certain organizational and other non-substantive changes that clarify how items of income under U.S. federal income tax law are assigned to an activity and how a partnership's net income in a CFTE category is determined.

For the avoidance of doubt, § 1.704-1(b)(4)(viii)(c)(2)(iii) is revised to more clearly describe when income from a divisible part of a single activity must be treated as income from a separate activity. Section 1.704-1(b)(4)(viii)(c)(2)(iii) provides that whether a partnership has one or more activities, and the scope of each activity, is determined in a reasonable manner taking into account all the facts and circumstances, with the principal consideration being whether the proposed determination has the effect of separating CFTEs from the related foreign income. The rule also provides that income from a divisible part of a single activity is treated as income from a separate activity if necessary to prevent separating CFTEs from the related foreign income. Example 24(iii) of § 1.704-1(b)(5) illustrates that if a partnership agreement makes a special allocation of income earned by a disregarded entity (DE1) in order to reflect a disregarded inter-branch payment paid by DE1 to a second disregarded entity, then the payment is treated as a divisible part of an activity and treated as a separate activity. These regulations confirm this result by adding language in § 1.704-1T(b)(4)(viii)(c)(2)(iii) clarifying that income from a divisible part of a single activity is treated as income from a separate activity whenever the income is subject to different allocations.

These regulations also confirm in § 1.704-1T(b)(4)(viii)(c)(2)(iii) that a guaranteed payment or preferential allocation of income that is determined by reference to all the income from a single activity generally will not result in dividing a single activity into separate activities. This clarification is consistent with the rule in § 1.704-1(b)(4)(viii)(c)(2)(ii), which generally provides that a guaranteed payment, gross income allocation, or other preferential allocation that is determined by reference to income from all of the partnership's activities does not result in different allocations of income from separate activities. For an illustration of the application of § 1.704-1(b)(4)(viii)(c)(2)(iii) prior to this clarification, see § 1.704-1(b)(5) Example 22 and Example 25, the latter of which has also been updated as part of these temporary regulations.

In order to more clearly explain how the rules for determining a partnership's net income in a CFTE category operate and to assist taxpayers in applying these rules, these temporary regulations reorganize § 1.704-1(b)(4)(viii)(c)(3) and provide an introductory paragraph at § 1.704-1T(b)(4)(viii)(c)(3)(i) that describes the steps for computing a partnership's net income in a CFTE category.

The current final regulations provide that only items of gross income recognized by a branch for U.S. income tax purposes are taken into account to determine net income attributable to any activity of a branch. Example 24 in § 1.704-1(b)(5) further illustrates that a disregarded inter-branch payment does not move income from one activity to another. These temporary regulations confirm at § 1.704-1T(b)(4)(viii)(c)(3)(iv) that disregarded payments are never taken into account in determining the amount of net income attributable to an activity (although, as noted above, a special allocation of income used to make a disregarded payment may result in that income being treated as a divisible part of the activity giving rise to the income), and that therefore an item of gross income is assigned to the activity that generates the item of income that is recognized for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

In addition, the current final regulations use the term “distributive share of income,” which has a general meaning under subchapter K but is used for a different purpose under § 1.704-1(b)(4)(viii)(c)(4). To avoid confusion, these temporary regulations at § 1.704-1T(b)(4)(viii)(c)(4)(i) revise the term “distributive share of income” to “CFTE category share of income.” No difference in meaning or purpose is intended by the change in terminology. The Treasury Department and the IRS will update Examples 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, and 27 in § 1.704-1(b)(5) (which are not revised under these temporary regulations) to reflect the new terminology when these temporary regulations are finalized. In the interim, any reference to “distributive share of income” under the current final regulations should be treated as a reference to a “CFTE category share of income” as defined in § 1.704-1T(b)(4)(viii)(c)(4)(i).

These temporary regulations apply for partnership taxable years that both begin on or after January 1, 2016, and end after February 4, 2016. The temporary regulations also modify an existing transition rule with respect to certain inter-branch payments for partnerships whose agreements were entered into prior to February 14, 2012. The current transition rule provides that if there has been no material modification to their partnership agreements on or after February 14, 2012, then, for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2012, these partnerships may apply the provisions of §§ 1.704-1(b)(4)(viii)(c)(3)(ii) and 1.704-1(b)(4)(viii)(d)(3) (revised as of April 1, 2011). That transition rule is modified to provide that for tax years that both begin on or after January 1, 2016, and end after February 4, 2016, these partnerships may continue to apply the provisions of § 1.704-1(b)(4)(viii)(d)(3) (revised as of April 1, 2011) but must apply the provisions of § 1.704-1T(b)(4)(viii)(c)(3)(ii). See § 1.704-1T(b)(1)(ii)(b)(3)(B). For purposes of this transition rule, any change in ownership constitutes a material modification to the partnership agreement. This transition rule does not apply to any taxable year (and all subsequent taxable years) in which persons bearing a relationship to each other that is specified in section 267(b) or section 707(b) collectively have the power to amend the partnership agreement without the consent of any unrelated party.

No inference is intended as to the application of the provisions amended by these temporary regulations under current law. The IRS may, where appropriate, challenge transactions, including those described in these temporary regulations and this preamble, under currently applicable Code or regulatory provisions or judicial doctrines.

Certain IRS regulations, including this one, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory impact assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because the regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, these regulations have been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.

The principal author of these regulations is Suzanne M. Walsh of the Office of Chief Counsel (International). However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:

BNSF requested that the BNSF Swing Bridge across the Columbia River, mile 105.6, remain closed to vessel traffic to remove and replace rail joints. During this installation period, the swing span of the bridge will be in the closed-to-navigation position; however, the span may be opened for maritime emergencies, but any emergency opening will necessitate a time extension to the approved dates. The BNSF Swing Bridge, mile 105.6, provides 39 feet of vertical clearance above Columbia River Datum 0.0 while in the closed position. The current operations for the swing bridge is in 33 CFR 117.5. This deviation allows the swing span of the BNSF Railway Bridge across the Columbia River, mile 105.6, to remain in the closed-to-navigation position, and need not open for maritime traffic from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on March 8, March 10, March 15, March 16 and March 17, 2016. These dates coincide with the Columbia River Bonneville lock and the Dalles lock. The bridge shall operate in accordance to 33 CFR 117.5 at all other times. Waterway usage on this part of the Columbia River includes vessels ranging from commercial tug and tow vessels to recreational pleasure craft including cabin cruisers and sailing vessels.

Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed positions may do so at anytime. For the duration of the repair work, vessels will not be allowed to pass through the bridge. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The bridge can be opened for emergency vessels in response to a call, however, if an opening for emergencies is needed, an extension of this deviation will be required to complete the work. No immediate alternate route for vessels to pass is available on this part of the river.

The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels 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 designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

The Virginia Department of Transportation, that owns and operates the James River Bridge (US17), has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations to perform repairs to the aerial electrical cable connecting the north tower to the south tower. The bridge is a vertical lift draw bridge and has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 60 feet above mean high water.

The current operating schedule is open on signal as set out in 33 CFR 117.5. Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 5 a.m. to 7 p.m. from February 7, 2016 through February 14, 2016. During this temporary deviation, the bridge will operate per 33 CFR 117.5 from 7 p.m. to 5 a.m.

The James River is used by a variety of vessels including deep draft ocean-going vessels, U.S. government vessels, small commercial vessels, recreational vessels and tug and barge traffic. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with waterway users.

Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transit 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.

The State Health Insurance Assistance Program (SHIP) was created under Section 4360 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-508). This section of the law authorized the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to make grants to States to establish and maintain health insurance advisory service programs for Medicare beneficiaries. Grant funds were made available to support information, counseling, and assistance activities relating to Medicare, Medicaid, and other related health insurance options such as: Medicare supplement insurance, long-term care insurance, managed care options, and other health insurance benefit information. In January 2014, authorized in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014, the SHIP program was transferred from CMS to the Administration for Community Living (ACL). This transfer reflects the existing formal and informal collaborations between the SHIP programs and the networks that ACL serves.

In this interim final rule, ACL transfers all provisions of the existing SHIP regulations at 42 CFR part 403 subpart E, §§ 403.500-403.512, to a new part at 45 CFR 1331.1-1331.7, and 42 CFR part 403 subpart E is reserved. This transfer positions the regulations governing the SHIP program alongside the other ACL regulations, reflecting the transfer of the program to ACL's administration.

In addition, as Congress has transferred the entirety of the SHIP program to ACL, all references to CMS' administration of the program are changed in this rule to ACL.

Finally, as HHS has promulgated new Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards, codified at 45 CFR part 75 since the previous rule's implementation, this rule changes a reference to previous guidance in § 1331.7 Administration.

This rule is not being treated as a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

The Secretary certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354), that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The primary impact of this regulation is on entities applying for SHIP funding opportunities, specifically researchers, States, public or private agencies and organizations, institutions of higher education, and Indian tribes and Tribal organizations. The regulation does not have a significant economic impact on these entities.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Ch. 3506; 5 CFR 1320 Appendix A.1) (PRA), ACL and CMS have determined that there are no new collections of information contained in this interim final rule.

Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), ACL and CMS are required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking and provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed regulations prior to establishing a final rule unless it is determined for good cause that the notice and comment procedure is impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to public interest. 5 U.S.C. 553(b). As noted previously, Congress has already transferred the SHIP program to ACL under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014. This interim final rule makes no changes other than aligning the location of the regulations within the Federal Register with other ACL programs; amending the name of the administering agency to ACL; and updating a reference to new Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards, which have already undergone notice and comment rulemaking, therefore, there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) for waiving proposed rulemaking as unnecessary.

Agencies are required to delay the effective date of their final regulations by 30 days after publication, as required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), unless an exception under subsection (d) applies. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), ACL and CMS may waive the delayed effective date requirement if they find good cause and explain the basis for the waiver in the final rulemaking document or if the regulations grant or recognize an exemption or relieve a restriction.

In the present case, there is good cause to waive the delayed effective date for this interim final rule, because the substance of the regulation, other than the name of the administering agency, is identical to the current regulation.

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires that a covered agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in expenditures by State, local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million, adjusted for inflation, or more in any one year. ACL and CMS have determined that this rule does not result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal government in the aggregate or by the private sector of more than $100 million in any one year.

This rule is not a major rule as defined in 5 U.S.C. Section 804(2).

Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999 requires Federal agencies to determine whether a policy or regulation may affect family well-being. If the agency's conclusion is affirmative, then the agency must prepare an impact assessment addressing seven criteria specified in the law. These regulations do not have an impact on family well-being as defined in the legislation.

Executive Order 13132 on “federalism” was signed August 4, 1999. The purposes of the Order are: “. . . to guarantee the division of governmental responsibilities between the national government and the States that was intended by the Framers of the Constitution, to ensure that the principles of federalism established by the Framers guide the executive departments and agencies in the formulation and implementation of policies, and to further the policies of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act . . .” Executive Order 13132 applies to actions with federalism implications, which are actions that have substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the Federal government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For actions that have federalism implications and preempt state law or have federalism implications and impose substantial compliance costs on states and local governments, the agency must consult with state and local officials before publishing the rule and include a federalism statement in the preamble.

The Department certifies that this rule does not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the Federal government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

ACL and CMS are not aware of any specific state laws that would be preempted by the adoption of the regulation.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS, and Department of Health and Human Services amend title 42, chapter IV and title 45, chapter XIII, subchapter C, of the Code of Federal Regulations, respectively, as follows:

This document announces that, on January 5, 2016, OMB approved the information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Report and Order, FCC 15-70, published at 80 FR 66454, October 29, 2015. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1214. The Commission publishes this notice as an announcement of the effective date of the rules. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-1214, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via email at [email protected].

To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received final OMB approval on January 5, 2016, for the information collection requirements contained in the modifications to the Commission's rules in 47 CFR 52.15(g)(2)-(g)(3).

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 3060-1214.

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: 3060-1214.

OMB Approval Date: January 5, 2016.

OMB Expiration Date: January 31, 2019.

Title: Direct Access to Numbers Orders, FCC 15-70 Conditions.

Form Number: N/A.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 13 respondents; 13 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 120 hours.

Frequency of Response: One-time, biennial and on-going reporting requirements.

Obligation to Respond: Voluntary. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 251(e)(1).

Total Annual Burden: 1,560 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No cost.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: If respondents submit information which respondents believe is confidential, respondents may request confidential treatment of such information pursuant to section 0.459 of the Communication's rules, 47 CFR 0.459.

Privacy Act: No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: June 18, 2015, the Commission adopted a Report and Order establishing the Numbering Authorization Application process, which allows interconnected VoIP providers to apply for a blanket authorization from the FCC that, once granted, will allow them to demonstrate that they have the authority to provide service in specific areas, thus enabling them to request numbers directly from the Numbering Administrators. This collection covers the information and certifications that applicants must submit in order to comply with the Numbering Authorization Application process. The data, information, and documents acquired through this collection will allow interconnected VoIP providers to obtain numbers with minimal burden or delay while also preventing providers from obtaining numbers without first demonstrating that they can deploy and properly utilize such resources. This information will also help the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) protect against number exhaust while promoting competitive neutrality among traditional telecommunications carriers and interconnected VoIP providers by allowing both entities to obtain numbers directly from the Numbering Administrators. It will further help the FCC to maintain efficient utilization of numbering resources and ensure that telephone numbers are not being stranded.

This is a summary of the Commission's Second Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, FCC 15-156, adopted on November 18, 2015, and released on November 20, 2015. The full text of this document is available electronically via the FCC's Electronic Document Management System (EDOCS) Web site at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/ or via the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) Web site athttp://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat. This document is also available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by sending an email to [email protected] or calling the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

1. In October 2013, the Commission adopted rules that advance the important goal of making video programming accessible to individuals with disabilities on a wide range of consumer devices, allowing consumers who are blind or visually impaired and deaf or hard of hearing to more fully enjoy the benefits of such programming. In this Second Report and Order (Order) and Order on Reconsideration, we take additional steps to fulfill this goal by continuing the Commission's implementation of Sections 204 and 205 of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (“CVAA”), which mandate the accessibility of user interfaces on digital apparatus and navigation devices used to view video programming.1

2. This Order addresses three areas in which the Commission sought comment in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“Further NPRM”) that accompanied the first Report and Order issued in this proceeding.2 First, it implements Section 204's requirement that both the “appropriate built-in apparatus functions” and the “on-screen text menus or other visual indicators built in to the digital apparatus” to access such functions be “usable by individuals who are blind or visually impaired” 3 by relying on the Commission's existing definition of “usable” in Section 6.3(l) of our rules.4 In addition, it adopts information, documentation, and training requirements comparable to those in Section 6.11 of our rules for entities covered by both Section 204 and Section 205 of the CVAA.5 Second, it adopts consumer notification requirements for equipment manufacturers of digital apparatus and navigation devices that will require manufacturers to publicize the availability of accessible devices on manufacturer Web sites that must be accessible to those with disabilities. While multichannel video programming distributors (“MVPDs”) are already subject to Web site notification requirements pursuant to the rules we adopted in the Report and Order, the Order also requires MVPDs, as well as manufacturers, to ensure that the contact office or person listed on their Web site is able to answer both general and specific questions about the availability of accessible equipment, including, if necessary, providing information to consumers or directing consumers to a place where they can locate information about how to activate and use accessibility features. Finally, the Order declines to adopt a requirement that MVPDs include more detailed program information for public, educational, and governmental (“PEG”) channels in their video programming guides, finding that such a requirement is outside the scope of Section 205 of the CVAA.

3. Addressing a Petition for Reconsideration filed by several consumer and academic organizations,6 the Order on Reconsideration modifies our decision in the Report and Order by finding that, when a voice control is the sole means of activation for closed captioning, it will not be considered “reasonably comparable to a button, key, or icon” under Sections 204 or 205 due to the difficulty many people who are deaf and hard of hearing would encounter in using such an activation mechanism. At the same time, the Order finds that closed captioning and video description activation mechanisms relying on gesture control will be considered “reasonably comparable to a button, key, or icon” if they are simple and easy to use.

4. Among the CVAA's mandates is a requirement that the Commission adopt rules to ensure the accessibility of the user interfaces and video programming guides and menus for digital apparatus and navigation devices.7 The CVAA also required the Commission to establish an advisory committee known as the Video Programming Accessibility Advisory Committee (“VPAAC”),8 which submitted its statutorily mandated report addressing user interfaces and video programming guides and menus to the Commission on April 9, 2012.9 The Commission issued an NPRM in this proceeding on May 30, 2013,10 and adopted the Report and Order and Further NPRM on October 29, 2013. In the NPRM and the Report and Order, the Commission provided extensive background information regarding the history of the applicable provisions of the CVAA and the VPAAC Second Report: User Interfaces. 11 The Report and Order and Further NPRM were published in the Federal Register on December 20, 2013.12 Covered entities must comply with the rules adopted in the Report and Order by December 20, 2016, subject to certain exceptions.13 Consumer/Academic Groups filed a timely petition for reconsideration within 30 days of the Federal Register publication date.14

5. Section 204 Digital Apparatus. We will rely on the Commission's existing definition of “usable” in Section 6.3(l) of our rules to implement Section 204's requirement that both the “appropriate built-in apparatus functions” and “on-screen text menus or other visual indicators built in to the digital apparatus” to access such functions be “usable by individuals who are blind or visually impaired.” 15 Consistent with the language in Section 204 of the CVAA, the Commission required in the Report and Order that covered digital apparatus, “if achievable . . . be designed, developed, and fabricated so that control of appropriate built-in apparatus functions are accessible to and usable by individuals who are blind or visually impaired.” 16 The Commission also required, as mandated by Section 204 of the CVAA, that on-screen text menus or other visual indicators used to access the appropriate built-in apparatus functions “be accompanied by audio output . . . so that such menus or indicators are accessible to and usable by individuals who are blind or visually impaired in real-time.” 17 While the Report and Order specified accessibility requirements, i.e., how covered entities should make the appropriate built-in functions “accessible,” the Further NPRM sought comment on usability requirements, i.e., how covered entities should make the appropriate built-in functions “usable.” 18 Specifically, the Further NPRM inquired whether to adopt the definition of “usable” set forth in Section 6.3(l) of our rules and whether to impose information, documentation, and training requirements consistent with those set forth in Section 6.11 of our rules.19

6. Relying on the existing definition of usability in Section 6.3(l), we require manufacturers of Section 204 digital apparatus to ensure that individuals with disabilities have access to information and documentation on the full functionalities of digital apparatus, including instructions, product information (including accessible feature information), documentation, bills, and technical support which are provided to individuals without disabilities.20 Industry and academic commenters were united in their support of our proposal to rely on the Section 6.3(l) usable definition to implement Section 204.21 As the Further NPRM stated, the Commission has relied on the Section 6.3(l) definition in other CVAA contexts,22 and, given the agreement in the record on this point, we see no reason to depart from that approach here. The Consumer Electronics Association (“CEA”) asks that we “clarify” that application of the usability requirement under Section 204 to the “appropriate” built-in functions of covered digital apparatus only applies “to the extent the apparatus includes those functions.” 23 We agree with CEA that such an approach would be consistent with the Commission's approach in the Report and Order and adopt it here. Under the standard set forth in the Report and Order when implementing Section 204, a digital apparatus manufacturer is required to make an “appropriate built-in apparatus function” of a digital apparatus accessible only to the extent such function is “included in the device.” 24 Similarly, a digital apparatus manufacturer will be required under Section 204 to make usable an “appropriate built-in apparatus function” 25 or an on-screen text menu or other visual indicator that is used to access such function 26 only to the extent it is included in the device.

7. In addition to implementing the usability requirement of Section 204, we also adopt information, documentation, and training requirements consistent with those set forth in Section 6.11 of our rules. As noted in the Further NPRM, the Commission “adopted information, documentation, and training requirements when implementing Sections 716 and 718” of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (“Act”),27 which impose accessibility requirements on providers and manufacturers with respect to advanced communications services and equipment and Internet browsers on mobile phones and, like Section 204, require that covered products be “accessible to and usable by” individuals with disabilities.28 Section 6.11 requires that manufacturers ensure access to information and documentation it provides to its customers.29 Such information and documentation includes user guides, bills, installation guides for end-user installable devices, and product support communications, regarding both the product in general and the accessibility features of the product.30 In addition, Section 6.11 requires manufacturers to include the contact method for obtaining the information required by Section 6.11(a) in general product information, to consider certain accessibility-related topics when developing or modifying training programs, and to take other steps, as necessary.31 We agree with the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center for Wireless Technologies (“Wireless RERC”) that imposing these requirements in this context as well will provide a consistent experience for individuals with disabilities regardless of the product they are purchasing.32

8. We disagree with the argument made by CEA and DISH Network L.L.C./EchoStar Technologies L.L.C. (“DISH/EchoStar”) that imposing information, documentation, and training requirements will be redundant with the usability requirements in Section 6.3(l) that we adopt herein.33 While Section 6.3(l) provides a definition of usability in the definitional section of our rules, Section 6.11 outlines the specific actions that covered entities must take to provide access by people with disabilities to information and documentation, as well as information to be considered for inclusion in an appropriate manufacturer training program.34 Thus, for example, Section 6.11 directs manufacturers to provide access to user guides, bills, installation guides and product support communications.35 In addition, it directs manufacturers to provide a description of the accessibility and compatibility features of the product upon request, including, as needed, in alternate formats or alternate modes at no additional charge,36 and to ensure usable customer and technical support in call centers and service centers at no additional charge.37 With respect to training, Section 6.11 states that manufacturers shall consider various topics, including the accessibility requirements of, and means of communicating with, people with disabilities; adaptive technology commonly used by people with disabilities; and designs and solutions for accessibility.38 Therefore, we find that the information, documentation, and training requirements found in Section 6.11 are not redundant with the usability requirements in Section 6.3(l), but set forth a more specific set of obligations to which the manufacturers of Section 204 apparatus must adhere. Thus, we apply these requirements to entities covered by Section 204.

9. Section 205 Navigation Devices. We also adopt the information, documentation, and training requirements outlined in Section 6.11 of our rules as part of entities' obligations under Section 205. In the Further NPRM, we inquired whether we should impose Section 6.11 information, documentation, and training requirements on entities covered by Section 205, which applies to navigation devices, pursuant to our authority to “prescribe such regulations as are necessary to implement” the requirements of that section.39

10. We find that Section 205 of the CVAA provides the Commission with sufficient authority to adopt information, documentation, and training requirements. CEA, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (“NCTA”), and the American Cable Association (“ACA”) point out that Section 205 does not include the Section 204 “accessible to and usable by” language that the Commission has relied upon in the past to adopt information, documentation, and training requirements and, therefore, they question the Commission's statutory authority to adopt such requirements in the Section 205 context.40 We disagree with industry's arguments. Section 205 requires that on-screen text menus and guides provided by navigation devices are “audibly accessible” by individuals who are blind or visually impaired.41 In addition, Section 205(b)(1) empowers the Commission to “prescribe such regulations as are necessary to implement” the requirements of Section 205.42 If consumers do not know how to access a feature then, as a practical matter, it is not “accessible.” 43 Information, documentation, and training requirements are thus necessary for individuals with disabilities to be able to operate navigation devices that are made accessible in accordance with the requirements of Section 205. As described above, such requirements ensure that persons with disabilities are provided with accessible product information and documentation, such as user guides, bills, installation guides, and product support communications, with a description of the accessibility features of the device upon request,44 and with customer and technical support in call centers and service centers.45 While we note that under the rule, covered entities are required to provide a description of accessibility features and product documentation “upon request” by the consumer,46 we will treat a consumer's request for an accessible navigation device pursuant to Section 205 to also constitute a request for a description of the accessibility features of the device and end-user product documentation in accessible formats so that the consumer is able to operate the device. Such requirements also ensure that manufacturers and service providers consider various accessibility-related topics when designing training programs.47 We believe that these requirements are necessary for individuals with disabilities to have access to the accessibility features and functionality of Section 205 accessible navigation devices and to fully obtain the benefits of these devices.48 While these requirements broadly outline the steps covered entities must take to ensure access to information, documentation, and training for persons with disabilities, covered entities have flexibility to implement these requirements within the guidelines set forth in the rule.

11. Further, we disagree with CEA, NCTA, and DISH/EchoStar's argument that information, documentation, and training requirements will not be necessary because Section 205 navigation devices are provided upon request and the notification requirements already adopted under Section 205 in the Report and Order will be sufficient to ensure that consumers are able to obtain accessible navigation devices.49 Those notification requirements focus on ensuring that consumers with disabilities are provided with information about the availability of accessible navigation devices and how to obtain such devices.50 In contrast, the information, documentation, and training requirements that we adopt herein focus on ensuring that consumers with disabilities are provided with information about how to operate the accessibility features and functions of such devices in an accessible format and are provided with appropriate customer support for such devices. Thus, we find that the notification requirements already adopted in the Report and Order do not obviate the need for adopting information, documentation, and training requirements as set forth in Section 6.11, and we apply these requirements to entities covered by Section 205.

12. Achievability. We find that the usability requirement applicable to Section 204 devices and the information, documentation, and training requirements applicable to Section 204 and 205 devices adopted herein apply only “if achievable,” meaning “with reasonable effort or expense, as determined by the Commission.” 51 Section 303(aa)(1) of the Act indicates that apparatus covered by Section 204 are required to make appropriate built-in apparatus functions accessible to and usable by individuals who are blind or visually impaired only “if achievable.” 52 Similarly, Section 303(bb)(1) requires on-screen text menus and guides for the display or selection of multichannel video programming on navigation devices covered by Section 205 to be audibly accessible by individuals who are blind or visually impaired only “if achievable.” 53 The Commission will determine whether compliance is “achievable” on a case-by-case basis, consistent with the approach adopted in the Report and Order. 54 In particular, the Commission will consider the following factors in determining whether compliance with the usability and information, documentation, and training requirements are achievable in particular circumstances: (1) The nature and cost of the steps needed to meet the requirements of this section with respect to the specific equipment or service in question; (2) the technical and economic impact on the operation of the manufacturer or provider and on the operation of the specific equipment or service in question, including on the development and deployment of new communications technologies; (3) the type of operations of the manufacturer or provider; and (4) the extent to which the service provider or manufacturer in question offers accessible services or equipment containing varying degrees of functionality and features, and offered at differing price points.55

13. Compliance Deadlines. We continue to require the same compliance deadlines for the usability and information, documentation, and training requirements that the Commission adopted in the Report and Order for rules to ensure the accessibility of user interfaces and video programming guides and menus under Sections 204 and 205.56 We decline to provide additional time for entities to come into compliance with the usability requirements for Section 204 devices and the information, documentation, and training requirements for Section 204 and 205 devices adopted herein.57 With the exception of ACA, no commenter requested additional time to come into compliance with these requirements. ACA requests that small- and medium-sized cable operators receive an extended deadline to come into compliance with any information, documentation, and training requirements imposed on Section 205 entities.58 ACA contends that such operators “would likely lack the legal, technical, or financial ability to incorporate the [information, documentation, and training] requirements,” and, therefore, the Commission should provide them with an extended compliance deadline to alleviate these burdens.59 While we agree that providing some relief to small- and mid-sized operators is reasonable, we note that the Commission in the Report and Order already delayed the time by which mid-sized and smaller MVPD operators and small MVPD systems must comply with the requirements of Section 205 by two years.60 We believe that the delay already afforded to certain mid-sized and smaller MVPD operators and small MVPD systems will provide sufficient time in which to implement the information, documentation, and training requirements adopted herein.

14. We adopt the Further NPRM's tentative conclusion to require manufacturers of navigation devices subject to Section 205 to inform consumers about the availability of audibly accessible devices and accessibility solutions.61 Specifically, consistent with our proposal in the Further NPRM, we require manufacturers subject to Section 205 to prominently display information about audibly accessible devices and other accessibility solutions on their official Web sites.62 We also adopt a similar notification requirement for manufacturers of digital apparatus that are subject to Section 204. However, we decline to adopt labeling requirements or other point of sale notifications for either Section 205 navigation devices or Section 204 digital apparatus.

15. Pursuant to Section 205(b)(1) of the CVAA, we require equipment manufacturers subject to Section 205 to inform consumers about the availability of audibly accessible devices and accessibility solutions by prominently displaying accessibility information on their official Web sites, such as through a link on their home page.63 Our rules currently require MVPDs to notify consumers that navigation devices with the required accessibility features are available to consumers who are blind or visually impaired upon request, and, as part of these requirements, MVPDs must provide notice on their official Web sites about the availability of accessible navigation devices.64 In the Further NPRM, we inquired whether to impose similar requirements on manufacturers of navigation devices.65 Among the few commenters who addressed Web site notifications for manufacturers subject to Section 205, there appears to be general agreement that, at a minimum, equipment manufacturers should be required to prominently provide information about the availability of accessible devices on their Web sites.66 Further, we adopt our proposal in the Further NPRM to require manufacturers to convey through the Web site notice the means of making requests for accessible equipment and the specific person, office, or entity to which such requests are to be made.67 Because Section 205 allows covered entities to distribute accessible navigation devices “upon request” to blind and visually impaired individuals,68 we find that, similar to the requirement for MVPDs,69 the Web site notice provided by navigation device manufacturers must provide information on how individuals who are blind or visually impaired can request accessible equipment, as well as the specific person, office, or entity to which such requests are to be made. Although the Web site is required to contain information only about the availability of accessible devices and the means for making requests for such equipment, the contact office or person listed on the Web site must be able to answer both general and specific questions about the availability of accessible equipment, including, if necessary, providing information to consumers or directing consumers to a place where they can locate information about how to activate and use accessibility features.70 In addition, as is required for MVPD Web site notices, the information required herein by navigation device manufacturers must be provided in a Web site format that is accessible to individuals with disabilities.71

16. Device manufacturers that produce Section 204 digital apparatus will also be required to provide prominent notification about the availability of accessible devices on their official Web sites as is required for Section 205 navigation devices. In the Further NPRM, we sought comment on whether to impose notification requirements on equipment manufacturers subject to Section 204 to ensure that consumers with disabilities are informed about which products contain the required accessibility features and, more specifically, whether we should require manufacturers to prominently display information about the availability of accessible devices and about which products contain the required accessibility features on their official Web sites, such as through a link on their home pages, and whether we should require a point of contact who can answer consumer questions about which products contain the required accessibility features.72 Consumer/Academic Groups support adopting a Web site notification requirement for both digital apparatus and navigation devices, recognizing that “access is not possible if those who need the access are not aware of its availability.” 73 We agree and therefore adopt a Web site notification requirement for equipment manufacturers subject to Section 204. Just as we require for Section 205 manufacturers, the contact office or person listed on the Web site must be able to answer both general and specific questions about the availability of accessible equipment, including, if necessary, providing information to consumers or directing consumers to a place where they can locate information about how to activate and use accessibility features.

17. We disagree with CEA's contention that adopting the definition of “usable” for Section 204 devices obviates the need for any additional notification requirements for digital apparatus.74 Rather, we find that a Web site notification requirement will be minimally burdensome and may enhance manufacturers' efforts to comply with the usability requirement. Specifically, although not required, digital apparatus manufacturers may choose to use the notification portion of their Web site to include additional information about accessibility features.

18. We decline to impose labeling requirements or other point of sale notifications for navigation devices or digital apparatus at this time, but we emphasize that entities covered by Sections 204 and 205 of the CVAA are required to provide information about the accessibility features of devices, including information about how to access closed captioning controls and settings, as part of the information, documentation, and training requirements that we adopt herein. The Further NPRM sought comment regarding what notification, if any, should be required at the point of sale for consumers that wish to purchase accessible Section 205 or Section 204 devices at retail, such as a labeling requirement to identify accessible devices.75 Comments regarding point of sale notifications focused almost exclusively on whether the Commission should adopt a product labeling requirement. Consumer/Academic Groups support a labeling requirement for both navigation devices and digital apparatus that would inform consumers at the point of sale about product accessibility, including a notice on the packaging that “explain[s] how to access the closed captioning control as well as display settings.” 76 Consumer/Academic Groups also contend that manufacturers should be required to provide “step-by-step instructions with pictures explaining how to access the closed captioning features” either inside the packaging or on the packaging.77 CEA, the Entertainment Software Association (“ESA”), and the Telecommunications Industry Association (“TIA”) strongly oppose any labeling requirement for digital apparatus or navigation devices.78 For example, CEA argues that manufacturers should be able to work with retailers, without regulation, to determine how point of sale notifications should work and that manufacturers already have incentives to provide all necessary information to ensure that consumers know how to operate their devices.79

19. We agree with Consumer/Academic Groups that it is important that consumers with disabilities be provided with information about the accessibility features of digital apparatus and navigation devices. The Section 6.3(l) usability and Section 6.11 information and documentation requirements adopted by the Commission here require covered entities to provide consumers with such information. Pursuant to the usability requirements we adopt here, manufacturers subject to Section 204 of the CVAA must provide access to information and documentation on the full functionalities of digital apparatus, including instructions, product information (including accessible feature information), documentation, bills and technical support.80 Further, as part of the information and documentation requirements we adopt here, entities subject to both Section 204 and Section 205 of the CVAA must provide access to information and documentation, including installation guides and product support communications, and, in particular, must provide a description of the accessibility and compatibility features of the product upon request, including, as needed, in alternate formats or alternate modes at no additional charge.81 Thus, covered entities will be required to provide the information about product accessibility features, including information on how to access closed captioning features and display settings, and such information must be provided in accessible formats, but it will not need to be included on a label.82 As industry gains experience with the informational requirements, we may revisit our rules in the future to ensure that consumers are receiving information as intended by the statute.

20. Consumer/Academic Groups support requiring manufacturers to provide not just Web site notifications about the availability of accessible devices and the contact information for requesting accessible devices, but also Web site information “explaining the accessibility of their devices and how to access important accessibility features such as the closed captioning control and display settings.” 83 As noted above, while the information and documentation requirements that we adopt broadly outline the steps covered entities must take to ensure that persons with disabilities have access to information about accessibility features, covered entities have flexibility to implement these requirements within the guidelines set forth in the rule. Thus, we do not require that such information be posted on Web sites. However, we agree that providing this information on Web sites would be useful for consumers to be able to effectively use a device's accessibility features and therefore encourage covered entities to provide the required information and documentation about accessibility features on their Web sites in a format that is accessible to individuals with disabilities. With respect to both Section 204 and 205 devices, as we state above, we require persons listed as the point of contact for requests for accessible equipment to also be able to provide information about the availability of accessible equipment, including, if necessary, providing information to consumers or directing consumers to a place where they can locate information about how to activate and use accessibility features.

21. In addition, Consumer/Academic Groups request a central Web site, similar to the Commission's Accessibility Clearinghouse,84 which would include accessibility information for all digital apparatus and navigation devices.85 The Accessibility Clearinghouse was set up for equipment subject to Sections 255, 716, and 718 of the Act, namely telecommunications equipment, advanced communications services equipment, and Internet browsers on mobile phones, pursuant to a Congressional mandate within the CVAA,86 and we note that Congress did not mandate a similar Web site for equipment subject to Sections 204 and 205. Nevertheless, we find that consumers would benefit from this information being included within the framework of the already established Accessibility Clearinghouse. To date, the Accessibility Clearinghouse largely relies on manufacturers to update their product information on wireless communication technologies.87 A similar commitment by CEA, NCTA, and their memberships that could enable the inclusion and updating of information about accessible digital apparatus and navigation devices within the Accessibility Clearinghouse would be useful to consumers. Therefore, we encourage CEA and NCTA to coordinate with the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (“CGB”) to determine the feasibility of including information about the accessibility of digital apparatus and navigation devices within the current Accessibility Clearinghouse. We recommend that such coordination take place with CGB well before the December 20, 2016 compliance deadline for our digital apparatus and navigation device accessibility requirements.

22. Just as we require for manufacturers of Section 204 and 205 devices, we require MVPDs to ensure that the contact office or person listed on their Web site is able to answer both general and specific questions about the availability of accessible equipment, including, if necessary, providing information to consumers or directing consumers to a place where they can locate information about how to activate and use accessibility features. This new requirement is in addition to the two existing notification requirements for MVPDs that the Commission adopted in the Report and Order. First, MVPDs are required to clearly and conspicuously inform consumers about the availability of accessible navigation devices whenever MVPDs provide “information about equipment options in response to a consumer inquiry about service, accessibility, or other issues.” 88 Second, MVPDs must provide notice on their official Web sites about the availability of accessible navigation devices, in a way that is both prominent and accessible to those with disabilities.89 In particular, the Web site notice must prominently display information about accessible navigation devices in a way that makes such information available to all current and potential subscribers, and must list the specific person, office, or entity to which requests for accessible equipment are to be made.90 The Further NPRM inquired as to whether additional notification requirements, such as annual notices to subscribers or required marketing efforts,91 should be imposed and asked for information about the costs and benefits that might be associated with additional types of notification.92

23. MVPD commenters argue that it would be premature to impose additional notification requirements for MVPDs without first observing the efficacy of the notification requirements adopted by the Report and Order. 93 On the other hand, Montgomery County, Maryland (“Montgomery County”) expresses the concern that consumers will not be aware of the availability of accessible navigation devices unless MVPDs promote such availability and urges the Commission to adopt additional notification requirements including periodic announcements about accessible equipment in the program guide.94 Verizon and NCTA contend that additional requirements are unnecessary because market forces will incentivize MVPDs to promote the accessible capabilities of products.95 Although we do not agree that periodic announcements are necessary at this time, we conclude that MVPDs should take additional action to ensure that consumers are aware of the availability of accessible navigation devices. Specifically, we require that the contact office or person listed on an MVPD's Web site must be able to answer both general and specific questions about the availability of accessible equipment, including, if necessary, providing information to consumers or directing consumers to a place where they can locate information about how to activate and use accessibility features. We believe that this additional obligation, along with the notification requirements adopted in the Report and Order, will ensure that all current and potential subscribers that contact an MVPD looking for information about accessible navigation devices will be provided with information about accessible equipment options.96 Moreover, we believe that the incremental cost, if any, of implementing this requirement is slight and the potential benefit in assisting consumers is great.97 In the event that information is brought to our attention demonstrating that the MVPD notification requirements adopted in the Report and Order and herein have proven insufficient to inform consumers about the availability of accessible equipment, the Commission may revisit this issue.98

24. We decline to adopt a requirement that MVPDs include more detailed program information for public, educational, and governmental (“PEG”) channels in their video programming guides. In the Further NPRM, we sought comment on possible sources of authority for requiring MVPDs to ensure that video programming guides and menus that provide channel and program information include “high level channel and program descriptions and titles, as well as a symbol identifying the programs with accessibility options (captioning and video description).” 99 The Alliance for Communications Democracy (“ACD”) and Montgomery County contend that the Commission has authority to adopt such a requirement pursuant to Section 205 of the CVAA, which requires that “on-screen text menus and guides provided by navigation devices . . . for the display or selection of multichannel video programming [be made] audibly accessible in real-time upon request by individuals who are blind or visually impaired.” 100 According to ACD, the Commission can require MVPDs to include certain program information in program guides as part of implementing regulations that construe the terms “on-screen guide” and “audibly accessible in real-time . . . by individuals who are blind or visually impaired.” 101 NCTA, DISH/EchoStar, Verizon, CenturyLink, and ACA argue that the Commission does not have authority to impose such a requirement.102

25. We find that requiring MVPDs to include particular information in program guides is beyond the scope of Section 205 of the CVAA. In particular, we disagree with ACD's and Montgomery County's argument that the requirement to make on-screen text menus and guides on navigation devices audibly accessible gives the Commission authority to determine whether the substantive information provided in program guides is adequate and to require that particular information be included. As we stated in the Report and Order, while Section 205 of the CVAA requires that on-screen text menus and guides provided by navigation devices for the display or selection of multichannel video programming be made audibly accessible, it does not govern the underlying content in the menus and guides.103 As noted in the Report and Order, we encourage MVPDs to provide more detailed information in their program guides for PEG programs when such information is provided by PEG providers and when it is technically feasible.104

26. In response to Consumer/Academic Groups Petition,105 we reconsider guidance we provided in the Report and Order concerning which activation mechanisms are “reasonably comparable to a button, key or icon” 106 as required under the CVAA 107 and our implementing rules.108 First, we find on reconsideration that closed captioning activation mechanisms that rely solely on voice control will not fulfill the requirement that a closed captioning activation mechanism be reasonably comparable to a button, key, or icon. However, as explained more fully below, we do not prohibit the use of voice controls to activate closed captioning as long as there is an alternative closed captioning activation mechanism that is simple and easy to use for deaf and hard of hearing individuals.109 Second, we reaffirm our finding in the Report and Order that captioning and video description activation mechanisms that rely on gesture control will be considered compliant with the requirements of our rules implementing Sections 204 and 205 if the gesture activation mechanism is simple and easy to use.

27. On reconsideration, we find that closed captioning activation mechanisms that rely solely on voice control will not fulfill the requirement of our rules implementing Sections 204 and 205, which mandate a closed captioning activation mechanism reasonably comparable to a button, key, or icon.110 The Report and Order stated that, “[i]n determining whether an activation mechanism is reasonably comparable to a button, key, or icon, the Commission will consider the simplicity and ease of use of the mechanism.” 111 As the Commission explained, “[w]e believe this approach is consistent with Congress's intent `to ensure ready access to these features by persons with disabilities,' while still giving covered entities the flexibility contemplated by the statute.” 112 Among the examples given by the Commission for compliant activation mechanisms were both voice and gesture activation.113 Specifically, the Commission stated “that compliant mechanisms include, but are not limited to, the following: a dedicated button, key, or icon; voice commands; gestures; and a single step activation from the same location as the volume controls.” 114

28. The Consumer/Academic Groups Petition submits that “many” deaf and hard of hearing people, especially those who communicate using American Sign Language, “do not speak or speak clearly enough to use speech recognition technology.” 115 As a result, Consumer/Academic Groups contend that the use of voice controls to activate closed captioning “will effectively deny millions of deaf and hard of hearing people access to closed captioning and/or other accessibility features.” 116 Upon further review, we agree that voice activation would not be simple and easy to use for many individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing and, thus, should not be considered reasonably comparable to a button, key, or icon for activating closed captioning. Therefore, the use of voice activation for closed captioning, without an alternative closed captioning activation mechanism that is simple and easy to use for individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing, does not satisfy the obligation under Section 79.109(a)(1) and (b) of our rules and Sections 204 and 205 of the CVAA to provide a mechanism reasonably comparable to a button, key, or icon.117

29. While some opposing the Consumer/Academic Groups Petition express concern about the Commission prohibiting the use of voice controls to achieve accessibility,118 we emphasize that this Order does not prohibit use of voice controls to activate closed captioning as long as there is an alternative closed captioning activation mechanism that is simple and easy to use for the many deaf and hard of hearing individuals who cannot use their voices to activate this accessibility feature. NCTA and TIA both submit that voice control is likely to be only one method for activating accessibility features,119 and it is not our intent to prevent manufacturers from offering multiple avenues of accessibility. Rather, we find that solely providing a voice activation mechanism for closed captioning would not fulfill the MVPD's or manufacturer's obligation to provide an activation mechanism “reasonably comparable to a button, key, or icon” under our rules and Sections 204 and 205 of the CVAA.120

30. With respect to gesture control, we decline to reconsider our finding that gesture control that is simple and easy to use will be considered a compliant activation mechanism for closed captioning and video description under Sections 204 and 205.121 The Consumer/Academic Groups Petition argues that gesture control should not be considered a compliant closed captioning activation mechanism, because some deaf people may have mobility disabilities that prevent them from using gestures.122 Consumer/Academic Groups also note that they “are seriously concerned about the ability of blind and visually impaired people to access critical accessibility features through gestures.” 123 In response, CEA points out that the use of a button, key, or icon as an activation mechanism, clearly permissible under Sections 204 and 205, would be difficult for some individuals with disabilities such as “limited manual dexterity, limited reach or strength, or prosthetic devices.” 124 Sections 204 and 205 require that the activation mechanism be “reasonably comparable to a button, key, or icon,” 125 and we find that the Commission's interpretation of the phrase “reasonably comparable to a button, key, or icon” in the Report and Order to mean a mechanism that is simple and easy to use was both a reasonable and supportable interpretation of the language used by Congress.126 Furthermore, we find that a gesture control that is simple and easy to use complies with the requirements under Section 204 or 205 to provide an activation mechanism reasonably comparable to a button, key, or icon.

31. Industry commenters contend that gestures are likely to be one of multiple methods for activating accessibility features,127 and we agree that manufacturers should have the flexibility to offer multiple avenues of accessibility. We encourage covered entities to provide alternatives for the consumer, so that the consumer can choose the disability solution that works best based upon his or her need. While manufacturers have flexibility in their selection of a mechanism that is comparable to a button, key, or icon, we strongly recommend that they consult with consumers with disabilities about the method(s) they select to activate closed captions and video description, to ensure that these achieve Congress's goal of facilitating access to such accessibility features. For example, the Commission previously recognized that some individuals with hearing loss also have other disabilities.128 This is particularly true of older Americans who may have lost, or be in the process of losing, some of their sight or hand/eye coordination. For such persons, some gesture controls may not be “simple and easy to use.” Providing multiple means to access captions and video description will undoubtedly result in reaching a larger portion of the deaf and hard of hearing and blind or visually impaired populations, a goal that the Commission previously has stated is in keeping with Congressional intent.129

32. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (“RFA”), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“IRFA”) was incorporated in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“FNPRM”) in this proceeding. The Federal Communications Commission (“Commission”) sought written public comment on the proposals in the FNPRM, including comment on the IRFA. The Commission received no comments on the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“FRFA”) conforms to the RFA.

33. Pursuant to the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (“CVAA”), the Second Report and Order adopts additional rules requiring the accessibility of user interfaces on digital apparatus and navigation devices used to view video programming for individuals with disabilities. The rules we adopt here will effectuate Congress's goals in enacting Sections 204 and 205 of the CVAA by enabling individuals who are blind or visually impaired to more easily access video programming on a range of video devices, and enabling consumers who are deaf and hard of hearing to more easily activate closed captioning on video devices. Specifically, the Second Report and Order adopts rules requiring manufacturers of Section 204 digital apparatus to ensure that both the “appropriate built-in apparatus functions” and the “on-screen text menus or other visual indicators built in to the digital apparatus” to access such functions be “usable by individuals who are blind or visually impaired.” In addition, the Second Report and Order adopts information, documentation, and training requirements comparable to those in Section 6.11 of our rules for entities covered by both Section 204 and Section 205 of the CVAA. Further, the Second Report and Order adopts consumer notification requirements for equipment manufacturers of digital apparatus and navigation devices that will require manufacturers to publicize the availability of accessible devices on manufacturer Web sites that must be accessible to those with disabilities. While multichannel video programming distributors (“MVPDs”) are already subject to Web site notification requirements pursuant to the rules the Commission adopted in the Report and Order, the Second Report and Order also requires MVPDs, as well as manufacturers, to ensure that the contact office or person listed on their Web site is able to answer both general and specific questions about the availability of accessible equipment, including, if necessary, providing information to consumers or directing consumers to a place where they can locate information about how to activate and use accessibility features. The regulations adopted herein further the purpose of the CVAA to “update the communications laws to help ensure that individuals with disabilities are able to fully utilize communications services and equipment and better access video programming.”

34. Legal Basis. The authority for the action taken in this rulemaking is contained in the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Public Law 111-260, 124 Stat. 2751, and Sections 4(i), 4(j), 303(aa), 303(bb), and 716(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 303(aa), 303(bb), and 617(g).

35. No comments were filed in response to the IRFA.

36. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.

37. The RFA directs the Commission to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will be affected by the rules adopted in the Second Report and Order. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. Small entities that are directly affected by the rules adopted in the Second Report and Order include manufacturers of digital apparatus and navigation devices and MVPDs.

38. Cable Television Distribution Services. Since 2007, these services have been defined within the broad economic census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which was developed for small wireline businesses. This category is defined as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services; wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution; and wired broadband Internet services.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: All such businesses having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2007 shows that there were 31,996 establishments that operated that year. Of this total, 30,178 establishments had fewer than 100 employees, and 1,818 establishments had 100 or more employees. Therefore, under this size standard, we estimate that the majority of businesses can be considered small entities.

39. Cable Companies and Systems. The Commission has also developed its own small business size standards for the purpose of cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a “small cable company” is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers nationwide. Industry data shows that there were 1,141 cable companies at the end of June 2012. Of this total, all but 10 incumbent cable companies are small under this size standard. In addition, under the Commission's rate regulation rules, a “small system” is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. Current Commission records show 4,945 cable systems nationwide. Of this total, 4,380 cable systems have less than 20,000 subscribers, and 565 systems have 20,000 subscribers or more, based on the same records. Thus, under this standard, we estimate that most cable systems are small.

40. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard for small cable system operators, which is “a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.” There are approximately 56.4 million incumbent cable video subscribers in the United States today. Accordingly, an operator serving fewer than 564,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. Based on available data, we find that all but 10 incumbent cable operators are small under this size standard. We note that the Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million. Although it seems certain that some of these cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250,000,000, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the Communications Act.

41. Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) Service. DBS service is a nationally distributed subscription service that delivers video and audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic “dish” antenna at the subscriber's location. DBS, by exception, is now included in the SBA's broad economic census category, Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which was developed for small wireline businesses. Under this category, the SBA deems a wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2007 shows that there were 31,996 establishments that operated that year. Of this total, 30,178 establishments had fewer than 100 employees, and 1,818 establishments had 100 or more employees. Therefore, under this size standard, the majority of such businesses can be considered small. However, the data we have available as a basis for estimating the number of such small entities were gathered under a superseded SBA small business size standard formerly titled “Cable and Other Program Distribution.” The definition of Cable and Other Program Distribution provided that a small entity is one with $12.5 million or less in annual receipts. Currently, only two entities provide DBS service, which requires a great investment of capital for operation: DIRECTV and DISH Network. Each currently offer subscription services. DIRECTV and DISH Network each report annual revenues that are in excess of the threshold for a small business. Because DBS service requires significant capital, we believe it is unlikely that a small entity as defined by the SBA would have the financial wherewithal to become a DBS service provider.

42. Satellite Master Antenna Television (SMATV) Systems, also known as Private Cable Operators (PCOs). SMATV systems or PCOs are video distribution facilities that use closed transmission paths without using any public right-of-way. They acquire video programming and distribute it via terrestrial wiring in urban and suburban multiple dwelling units such as apartments and condominiums, and commercial multiple tenant units such as hotels and office buildings. SMATV systems or PCOs are now included in the SBA's broad economic census category, Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which was developed for small wireline businesses. Under this category, the SBA deems a wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2007 shows that there were 31,996 establishments that operated that year. Of this total, 30,178 establishments had fewer than 100 employees, and 1,818 establishments had 100 or more employees. Therefore, under this size standard, the majority of such businesses can be considered small.

43. Home Satellite Dish (HSD) Service. HSD or the large dish segment of the satellite industry is the original satellite-to-home service offered to consumers, and involves the home reception of signals transmitted by satellites operating generally in the C-band frequency. Unlike DBS, which uses small dishes, HSD antennas are between four and eight feet in diameter and can receive a wide range of unscrambled (free) programming and scrambled programming purchased from program packagers that are licensed to facilitate subscribers' receipt of video programming. Because HSD provides subscription services, HSD falls within the SBA-recognized definition of Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: All such businesses having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2007 shows that there were 31,996 establishments that operated that year. Of this total, 30,178 establishments had fewer than 100 employees, and 1,818 establishments had 100 or more employees. Therefore, under this size standard, we estimate that the majority of businesses can be considered small entities.

44. Open Video Services. The open video system (OVS) framework was established in 1996, and is one of four statutorily recognized options for the provision of video programming services by local exchange carriers. The OVS framework provides opportunities for the distribution of video programming other than through cable systems. Because OVS operators provide subscription services, OVS falls within the SBA small business size standard covering cable services, which is Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: All such businesses having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2007 shows that there were 31,996 establishments that operated that year. Of this total, 30,178 establishments had fewer than 100 employees, and 1,818 establishments had 100 or more employees. Therefore, under this size standard, we estimate that the majority of businesses can be considered small entities. In addition, we note that the Commission has certified some OVS operators, with some now providing service. Broadband service providers (“BSPs”) are currently the only significant holders of OVS certifications or local OVS franchises. The Commission does not have financial or employment information regarding the entities authorized to provide OVS, some of which may not yet be operational. Thus, again, at least some of the OVS operators may qualify as small entities.

45. Wireless cable systems—Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service. Wireless cable systems use the Broadband Radio Service (BRS) and Educational Broadband Service (EBS) to transmit video programming to subscribers. In connection with the 1996 BRS auction, the Commission established a small business size standard as an entity that had annual average gross revenues of no more than $40 million in the previous three calendar years. The BRS auctions resulted in 67 successful bidders obtaining licensing opportunities for 493 Basic Trading Areas (BTAs). Of the 67 auction winners, 61 met the definition of a small business. BRS also includes licensees of stations authorized prior to the auction. At this time, we estimate that of the 61 small business BRS auction winners, 48 remain small business licensees. In addition to the 48 small businesses that hold BTA authorizations, there are approximately 392 incumbent BRS licensees that are considered small entities. After adding the number of small business auction licensees to the number of incumbent licensees not already counted, we find that there are currently approximately 440 BRS licensees that are defined as small businesses under either the SBA or the Commission's rules. In 2009, the Commission conducted Auction 86, the sale of 78 licenses in the BRS areas. The Commission offered three levels of bidding credits: (i) A bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that exceed $15 million and do not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years (small business) received a 15 percent discount on its winning bid; (ii) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that exceed $3 million and do not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years (very small business) received a 25 percent discount on its winning bid; and (iii) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that do not exceed $3 million for the preceding three years (entrepreneur) received a 35 percent discount on its winning bid. Auction 86 concluded in 2009 with the sale of 61 licenses. Of the 10 winning bidders, two bidders that claimed small business status won four licenses; one bidder that claimed very small business status won three licenses; and two bidders that claimed entrepreneur status won six licenses.

46. In addition, the SBA's placement of Cable Television Distribution Services in the category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers is applicable to cable-based Educational Broadcasting Services. Since 2007, these services have been defined within the broad economic census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which was developed for small wireline businesses. This category is defined as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services; wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution; and wired broadband Internet services.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: All such businesses having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2007 shows that there were 31,996 establishments that operated that year. Of this total, 30,178 establishments had fewer than 100 employees, and 1,818 establishments had 100 or more employees. Therefore, under this size standard, we estimate that the majority of businesses can be considered small entities. In addition to Census data, the Commission's internal records indicate that as of September 2012, there are 2,241 active EBS licenses. The Commission estimates that of these 2,241 licenses, the majority are held by non-profit educational institutions and school districts, which are by statute defined as small businesses.

47. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent local exchange services. ILECs are included in the SBA's economic census category, Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under this category, the SBA deems a wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2007 shows that there were 31,996 establishments that operated that year. Of this total, 30,178 establishments had fewer than 100 employees, and 1,818 establishments had 100 or more employees. Therefore, under this size standard, the majority of such businesses can be considered small.

48. Small Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers. We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers in this present RFA analysis. A “small business” under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and “is not dominant in its field of operation.” The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent local exchange carriers are not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not “national” in scope. We have therefore included small incumbent local exchange carriers in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.

49. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs), Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for these service providers. These entities are included in the SBA's economic census category, Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under this category, the SBA deems a wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2007 shows that there were 31,996 establishments that operated that year. Of this total, 30,178 establishments had fewer than 100 employees, and 1,818 establishments had 100 or more employees. Therefore, under this size standard, the majority of such businesses can be considered small.

50. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and television studio and broadcasting equipment.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: All such businesses having 750 or fewer employees. Census data for 2007 shows that there were 939 establishments that operated for part or all of the entire year. Of those, 912 operated with fewer than 500 employees, and 27 operated with 500 or more employees. Therefore, under this size standard, the majority of such establishments can be considered small.

51. Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing electronic audio and video equipment for home entertainment, motor vehicles, and public address and musical instrument amplification. Examples of products made by these establishments are video cassette recorders, televisions, stereo equipment, speaker systems, household-type video cameras, jukeboxes, and amplifiers for musical instruments and public address systems.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: All such businesses having 750 or fewer employees. Census data for 2007 shows that there were 492 establishments in this category operated for part or all of the entire year. Of those, 488 operated with fewer than 500 employees, and four operated with 500 or more employees. Therefore, under this size standard, the majority of such establishments can be considered small.

52. In this section, we describe the reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements adopted in the Second Report and Order and consider whether small entities are affected disproportionately by these requirements.

53. Reporting Requirements. The Second Report and Order does not adopt reporting requirements.

54. Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements. The Second Report and Order adopts certain recordkeeping and other compliance requirements, which are applicable to covered small entities. First, the Second Report and Order requires manufacturers of Section 204 digital apparatus to ensure that both the “appropriate built-in apparatus functions” and “on-screen text menus or other visual indicators built in to the digital apparatus” to access those functions be “usable by individuals who are blind or visually impaired.” Specifically, the Second Report and Order requires require manufacturers of Section 204 digital apparatus to ensure that individuals with disabilities have access to information and documentation on the full functionalities of digital apparatus, including instructions, product information (including accessible feature information), documentation, bills, and technical support which are provided to individuals without disabilities.

55. Second, the Second Report and Order adopts information, documentation, and training requirements consistent with those set forth in Section 6.11 of our rules for entities covered by both Section 204 and Section 205 of the CVAA. These rules require covered entities to ensure access to information and documentation it provides to its customers, if achievable. Such information and documentation includes user guides, bills, installation guides for end-user installable devices, and product support communications, regarding both the product in general and the accessibility features of the product. In addition, the rules require covered entities to include the contact method for obtaining the required information and documentation in general product information, to consider certain accessibility-related topics when developing or modifying training programs, and to take other achievable steps, as necessary.

56. Third, the Second Report and Order imposes notification requirements for manufacturers of digital apparatus and navigation devices. Digital apparatus manufacturers must provide prominent notice on their official Web sites about the availability of accessible digital apparatus in a Web site format that is accessible to people with disabilities. The notice must publicize the availability of accessible devices and the specific person, office, or entity who can answer consumer questions about which products contain the required accessibility features. Navigation device manufacturers must also provide prominent notice on their official Web site about the availability of accessible navigation devices in a Web site format that is accessible to people with disabilities. For navigation device manufacturers, the notice must publicize the availability of accessible devices and solutions and explain the means for making requests for accessible equipment and the specific person, office, or entity to which such requests are to be made.

57. Potential for disproportionate impact on small entities. Section 204 of the CVAA requires both “the appropriate built-in apparatus functions” and “on-screen text menus or visual indicators built in to the digital apparatus” to access those functions to be “usable by individuals who are blind or visually impaired.” The Second Report and Order adopts the definition of “usable” in Section 6.3(l) of the Commission's rules to implement this Section 204 mandate. The definition of “usable” requires that individuals with disabilities have access to information and documentation on the full functionalities of digital apparatus, including instructions, product information (including accessible feature information), documentation, bills, and technical support which are provided to individuals without disabilities. No commenter provided information concerning the costs and administrative burdens associated with this specific compliance requirement. Nevertheless, both industry and consumer commenters supported the Commission's application of the Section 6.3(l) “usable” definition to implement Section 204. Manufacturers must comply with the usability standard only if compliance is “achievable.” Thus, in the event that this compliance requirement disproportionately affects small entities, the Commission will have a way to minimize the impact on such entities.

58. The Second Report and Order also adopts the information, documentation, and training requirements in Section 6.11 of the Commission's rules for Section 204 digital apparatus and Section 205 navigation devices. Specifically, the rules the Commission adopts require covered entities to ensure access to information and documentation it provides to its customers, if achievable. This includes user guides, bills, installation guides for end-user installable devices, and product support communications, regarding both the product in general and the accessibility features of the product. This requirement also considers achievability, which will allow to minimize the impact on small entities, and still further recognizes the impact on small businesses by requiring “other achievable steps” that should only be taken “as necessary.” In the record of this proceeding, the American Cable Association (“ACA”) expressed concern that the information, documentation, and training requirements “would . . . disproportionately burden smaller cable operators who would have to produce the required accessibility support materials and training without the benefits of scale to help them to spread the costs of such initiatives over a large user base.” As such, ACA requested that small- and medium-sized cable operators receive an extended deadline to come into compliance with any information, documentation, and training requirements imposed on Section 205 entities. The Commission agrees that providing some relief to small- and mid-sized operators is reasonable. The Second Report and Order notes that the Commission in the Report and Order already delayed the time by which mid-sized and smaller MVPD operators and small MVPD systems must comply with the requirements of Section 205 by two years. Therefore, while MVPDs generally must comply with the rules adopted in the Second Report and Order by December 20, 2016, certain mid-sized and smaller MVPD operators and small MVPD systems need not comply until December 20, 2018. This delay afforded to certain mid-sized and smaller MVPD operators and small MVPD systems will provide sufficient time in which to implement the information, documentation, and training requirements adopted in the Second Report and Order. In addition, we note that covered entities, including small entities, may petition for a waiver of these requirements for good cause pursuant to the existing waiver process in Section 1.3 of our rules.

59. The Second Report and Order also imposes notification requirements for manufacturers of digital apparatus and navigation devices and MVPDs. No commenter provided information concerning the costs and administrative burdens associated with this specific compliance requirement.

60. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. The FNPRM invited comment on issues that had the potential to have significant impact on some small entities.

61. The rules adopted in this Second Report and Order may have a significant economic impact in some cases, and that impact may affect small entities. Although the Commission has considered alternatives where possible, as directed by the RFA, to minimize economic impact on small entities, we emphasize that our action is governed by the congressional mandate contained in Sections 204 and 205 of the CVAA.

62. In formulating the final rules, however, the Commission has considered a number of methods to minimize the economic impact on small entities. With regard to the usability and information, documentation, and training requirements modeled on Sections 6.3(l) and 6.11, the Second Report and Order adopts procedures enabling the Commission to grant exemptions to the rules where a petitioner has shown that compliance is not achievable (i.e., cannot be accomplished with reasonable effort or expense). This process will allow the Commission to address the impact of the rules on individual entities, including smaller entities, on a case-by-case basis and to modify the application of the rules to accommodate individual circumstances, which can reduce the costs of compliance for these entities. We note that two of the four statutory factors that the Commission will consider in determining achievability are particularly relevant to small entities: The nature and cost of the steps needed to meet the requirements, and the technical and economic impact on the entity's operations.

63. The Second Report and Order also adopts consumer notification requirements for manufacturers of both digital apparatus and navigation devices and MVPDs. Specifically, manufacturers are required to publicize the availability of accessible devices on their Web sites (which must also be accessible for those with disabilities). Both manufacturers and MVPDs must ensure that the contact office or person listed on their Web site is able to answer both general and specific questions about the availability of accessible equipment, including, if necessary, providing information to consumers or directing consumers to a place where they can locate information about how to activate and use accessibility features. The Commission has not dictated the means by which manufacturers must comply with the requirements. Furthermore, in an attempt to simplify the notification requirements and facilitate small entity compliance, the Commission limits these requirements to Web sites only.

64. Further, MVPD operators with 400,000 or fewer subscribers as of year-end 2012, and MVPD systems with 20,000 or fewer subscribers that are not affiliated with an operator serving more than 10 percent of all MVPD subscribers as of year-end 2012, were afforded with a two-year delay of the compliance deadline for the requirements adopted pursuant to Section 205 of the CVAA, and this deadline also applies to the rules adopted in the Second Report and Order. The delayed compliance deadline for small MVPDs will help minimize any disproportionate impact of the requirements adopted in the Second Report and Order.

65. Overall, we believe we have appropriately considered both the interests of individuals with disabilities and the interests of the entities who will be subject to the rules, including those that are smaller entities, consistent with Congress' goal to “update the communications laws to help ensure that individuals with disabilities are able to fully utilize communications services and equipment and better access video programming.”

66. The Commission will send a copy of the Second Report and Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Second Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. The Second Report and Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.

67. The Second Report and Order contains new and modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).130 The requirements will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies will be invited to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. The Commission will publish a separate document in the Federal Register at a later date seeking these comments. In addition, we note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002 (SBPRA),131 we seek specific comment on how the Commission might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

68. The Commission will send a copy of the Second Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration in MB Docket No. 12-108 in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

69. We remind interested parties that this proceeding is treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules.132 Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

70. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Pub. L. 111-260, 124 Stat. 2751, and the authority found in Sections 4(i), 4(j), 303(r), 303(u), 303(aa), 303(bb), and 716(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 303(r), 303(u), 303(aa), 303(bb), and 617(g), this Second Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration is adopted, effective March 7, 2016 except for 47 CFR 79.107(a)(5), (d), and (e), 79.108(d)(2) and (f), which shall become effective upon announcement in the Federal Register of OMB approval and an effective date of the rules.

71. It is ordered that, pursuant to the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Pub. L. 111-260, 124 Stat. 2751, and the authority found in Sections 4(i), 4(j), 303(r), 303(u), 303(aa), 303(bb), and 716(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 303(r), 303(u), 303(aa), 303(bb), and 617(g), the Commission's rules are hereby amended as set forth herein.

72. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Second Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration in MB Docket No. 12-108, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

73. It is further ordered that the Commission shall send a copy of this Second Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration in MB Docket No. 12-108 in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

74. It is further ordered that Consumer/Academic Groups Petition for Reconsideration, filed January 20, 2014, is granted in part and denied in part, to the extent provided herein.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 79 as follows:

This final rule amends 49 CFR part 501, the chapter of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that sets forth the organization of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and delegations of authority from the NHTSA Administrator to other Agency officials, to reflect a reorganization of the Agency's internal structure, to update out-of-date information, and to improve accuracy and clarity. In addition, this rule amends the succession to the Administrator to conform to the new organizational structure. These changes will enable the Agency to achieve its mission more effectively and efficiently.

In particular, NHTSA is eliminating the Senior Associate Administrator positions that were created in 2002 (67 FR 44083) from its internal organization and adding the Executive Director and the Chief Financial Officer positions, as well as their functions and responsibilities. Conforming changes to the regulations, including descriptions of the Associate Administrator positions, succession to the Administrator, and delegations of authority, are included. Additional changes have been made to improve formatting and consistency throughout part 501.

The amendments in this final rule relate solely to changes in the organizational structure and the placement of the delegations of authority for various functions within the agency. This final rule does not impose substantive requirements on the public. It is ministerial in nature and relates only to Agency management, organization, procedure, and practice. Therefore, the Agency has determined that notice and comment are unnecessary and that the rule is exempt from prior notice and comment requirements under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). As these changes will not have a substantive impact on the public, the Agency does not expect to receive significant comments on the substance of the rule. Therefore, the Agency finds that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

NHTSA has determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034). It was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. There are no costs associated with this rule.

This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”). This final rule does not have substantial direct effects 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. Therefore, the consultation requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.

This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”). Because this final rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.

Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply. This rule will not impose any costs on small entities because it is merely organizational in nature and will not have a substantive impact on the public. I hereby certify that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) does not require a written statement for this final rule because the rule does not include a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, or the private sector, exceeding the threshold set forth in 2 U.S.C. 1532(a).

For the reasons stated in the preamble, NHTSA revises 49 CFR part 501 to read as follows: