Federal Register Vol. 81, No.245,

Section 203(c) (7 U.S.C. 1622(c)) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627) (Act of 1946), as amended, directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade, and packaging, and recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices.

Parts 51 and 52 of title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations specify the inspection, certification and standard requirements for fresh and processed fruit, vegetable and specialty crops to ensure uniformity and consistency.

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.

This interim rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect and does not preempt any state or local law, regulation, or policy unless it presents an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. There are no administrative procedures which must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule.

This rule amends the inspection, certification and standards requirements for fresh fruits, vegetables and other products and processed fruits and vegetables, processed products and certain other processed food products (7 CFR parts 51 and 52) by adding an option to allow for electronic submissions of inspection applications. This rule also eliminates outdated terminology referencing the telegraph. These changes are administrative in nature and do not impose any new requirements on applicants.

Pursuant to Section 8e of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674) (Act of 1937), whenever certain commodities are regulated under Federal marketing orders, imports of those commodities into the United States are prohibited unless they meet the same or comparable grade, size, quality or maturity requirements as those in effect for domestically-produced commodities. The Act of 1937 also authorizes USDA to perform inspections and other related functions (such as commodity sampling) on those commodities and to certify whether these requirements have been met.

AMS's Specialty Crops Inspection (SCI) Division performs the inspections and other related functions on Section 8e imports in accordance with its authority under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946.

SCI Division is amending 7 CFR parts 51 and 52 to add the ability to submit initial inspection requests electronically and eliminate terminology referencing the telegraph. Individuals desiring to apply for an inspection for applicable fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop imports must complete and file AMS's form SC-357, Initial Inspection Request for Regulated Imported Commodities, in writing or electronically, to notify AMS of the need for an inspection.

Specifically, sections 51.6 and 52.7, “How to make an application” and “Information required in connection with application”, respectively, are being modified by this action.

Amending parts 51 and 52 of title 7 to provide for the electronic filing of the application for inspection supports the International Trade Data System (ITDS), a key White House Initiative that has been under development for over ten years and is mandated for completion by December 31, 2016 (pursuant to Executive Order 13659, Streamlining the Export/Import Process for American's Businesses, signed on February 19, 2014, by President Obama (79 FR 10657)). ITDS streamlines the export and import process for America's businesses. Upon full implementation, ITDS, through the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE), will allow businesses to electronically submit the data required by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and its Partner Government Agencies (PGAs) to import or export cargo through a “single window” concept.

The update to the inspection, certification and standards requirements to allow for electronic submission of inspection applications will meet CBP's requirement for ITDS.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened.

Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of no more than $750,000 and small agricultural service firms are defined as those having annual receipts of no more than $7.5 million. Under these definitions, AMS estimates the number of companies affected is approximately 60,000, with 24,000, or 40%, of the companies considered small businesses. AMS does not foresee any negative impact on members of the industry, regardless of size, as a result of this interim rule.

AMS is making these administrative changes to allow for the use of current technology by allowing the application for inspection to be submitted electronically and eliminating references to filing applications for service by telegraph.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the information collection requirements for form SC-357, Initial Inspection Request for Regulated Imported Commodities, was previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0125, effective August 1, 2016. AMS has determined that no changes are required to the information collection requirements as a result of the changes in this action. Should additional changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval. AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

In addition, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule.

Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this interim rule, including the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.

This rule invites comments on updates to application requirements and the administrative change to the inspection, certification and standards requirements for fresh and processed fruit, vegetable, and specialty crops. Any comments received will be considered prior to finalization of this rule.

After consideration of all relevant material presented, it is found that this interim rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act of 1946. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, AMS has found and determined upon good cause that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into effect because: (1) The changes in this rule reflect current practices; (2) the import industry is aware of the ITDS initiative and its goal to automate paper-based processes; (3) CBP is requiring the timely update of import regulations to meet the ITDS electronic data submission requirement; and (4) this rule provides a 60-day comment period, and all comments received will be considered prior to the finalization of this rule.

Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended, directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture “to develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade, and packaging, and recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices.”

AMS is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural commodities and makes copies of official standards available upon request. The U.S. standards for grades of fruits and vegetables not connected with Federal Marketing Orders or U.S. import requirements no longer appear in the Code of Federal Regulations, but are maintained by USDA, AMS, Specialty Crops Program and are available on the internet at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards/vegetables. AMS revised these U.S. Standards for Grades using the procedures that appear in part 36 of title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR part 36).

The regulation on USDA-OIG's organization, functions, and delegations of authority was last published in 1995 (60 FR 52840). Since that time, OIG has had several internal reorganizations. In order to provide the public with current information regarding OIG's organization, functions, and delegations of authority, OIG is amending its regulations.

This rule relates to agency organization and internal agency management. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(A), such rules are not subject to the requirement to provide public notice of proposed rulemaking and opportunity for public comment. Therefore, notice and comment before the effective date are being waived.

OIG has reviewed this rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. OIG has determined that this rule is non-significant within the meaning of Executive Order 12866. Therefore, this rule is not required to be and has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

These regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis as provided by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, is not required.

This rule relates to internal agency organization and management. Therefore, it is exempt from the provisions of Executive Order 12291.

These regulations impose no additional reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Therefore, clearance by OMB is not required.

This rule does not have Federalism implications, as set forth in Executive Order 13132. It will 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.

OIG has determined that this rule is not a major rule as defined by the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804.

In April 2016, the Board issued a proposed rule 1 to amend its regulation governing FCU occupancy, planning, and disposal of acquired and abandoned premises, and its regulation regarding incidental powers. The regulatory changes in the 2016 proposed rule are identical to the regulatory changes adopted in this final rule as summarized above. The Board received 27 comment letters in response to the proposed rule. Twenty-six of the commenters generally supported the proposal and one commenter opposed the rule. Of the 26 supportive comments, approximately half recommended additional changes or more regulatory relief.

As noted above, one commenter opposed the proposed rule in its entirety. This commenter asserted that the proposed rule was a significant departure from the Board's previous interpretation of the Federal Credit Union Act (the Act) and could lead to FCUs exceeding their authority.

As stated in the proposed rule, the Board believes the language in Section 107(4) of the Act supports an interpretation that provides FCUs with more flexibility than permitted by the current rule to acquire and hold real property.2 Accordingly, the Board has reconsidered its current approach of requiring FCUs to fully occupy premises. The Board notes that section 107(4) of the Act neither explicitly mentions nor requires full occupancy of FCU property.

While this final rule represents a departure from the Board's previous interpretation of section 107(4) of the Act, the Board believes the rule is both reasonable and consistent with the requirements of the Act and is within the Board's authority. The Board notes that the United States Supreme Court has emphasized that an “initial agency interpretation is not instantly carved in stone,” and “to engage in informed rulemaking, [an agency] must consider varying interpretations and the wisdom of its policy on a continuing basis,” indicating that an agency may change its interpretive position on the statutes it administers.3 The final rule is reasonable and eliminates the imposition of unnecessary hardship on FCUs whose growth potential and member service strategies may be hampered by the current rule.

The Board reiterates, however, its current view that there is no authority in the Act for an FCU to invest in real estate for speculative purposes or to otherwise engage in real estate activities that do not generally support its purpose of providing financial services to its members. The Act is clear that any property acquired or held by an FCU must be “necessary or incidental to its operations.” 4 NCUA has stated consistently that an FCU may only invest in property it intends to use to transact credit union business or in property that supports its internal operations or member services.

The large majority of commenters strongly supported removing the full occupancy requirement. However, two commenters opposed this particular aspect of the proposed rule. Commenters that disagreed with the elimination of the full occupancy requirement expressed concern that FCUs will be more likely to venture into real estate activities that are beyond the scope of credit union operations envisioned by Congress.

In the proposed rule, the Board emphasized that maintaining the requirement that an FCU must partially occupy real property it obtains will reduce the likelihood and opportunity for speculative investments. The Board reaffirms this position and also notes that NCUA will diligently oversee FCUs' activities in this area to ensure that FCUs are not engaging in speculative investments or other real estate activities that are not permitted under the Act. Any FCU in violation of these requirements could be subject to all administrative remedies available to the agency. Therefore, the Board does not believe this final rule will result in FCUs operating beyond the scope of their authority as Congress provided for in the Act.

Under the current rule, an FCU must partially occupy premises acquired for future expansion, within a reasonable period, but no later than six years after the date of acquisition. The proposed rule did not change this requirement, but did modify the definition of “partially occupy” to mean occupation and use, on a full-time basis, of at least fifty percent of the premises by the FCU, or by a combination of the FCU and a CUSO in which the FCU has a controlling interest in accordance with GAAP.

Nearly half of the commenters supported the proposed definition of “partially occupy.” Several of these commenters, however, asked how they are to measure different areas of a building (e.g., common, service and mechanical areas) for determining the FCU's percentage of occupancy. The Board notes that NCUA will consider all shared facilities owned by the FCU as occupied by the FCU, unless the area is specifically leased to an outside entity for their exclusive use. This will include common, service, and mechanical areas, and other shared spaces.

In addition, a few commenters supported the proposed definition, but suggested the rule should allow for exceptions to the fifty percent requirement or permit waivers from the partial occupancy requirement. Some of these commenters noted that an FCU meeting the fifty percent occupancy requirement may, at a later time, occupy less than fifty percent for economic or strategic reasons. One commenter stated that waivers should be allowed in such circumstances. Another commenter suggested that satisfaction of the fifty percent occupancy requirement should be “grandfathered” once initially achieved by the FCU. Finally, one commenter said mixed-use developments in urban areas sometimes require shared space and that common areas and other shared fixtures and utilities should count toward the fifty percent partial occupancy requirement.

The final rule retains the waiver provisions for the partial occupancy requirement. FCUs can request a waiver of either the fifty percent requirement or the six-year requirement. The waiver process is designed to allow NCUA to evaluate unique circumstances. For example, certain zoning laws affecting a particular property may support NCUA accepting less than fifty percent occupancy or extending the time period for compliance. The Board believes the waiver process balances providing flexibility to FCUs while maintaining safety and soundness.

A few commenters disagreed with the proposed definition in its entirety. One commenter argued against the fifty percent threshold and stated the rule should allow FCUs broader flexibility to occupy a lesser percentage of their premises. As discussed in more detail above, the Board purposefully included the proposed partial occupancy requirement, among other reasons, as a protection against FCUs potentially engaging in impermissible and speculative real estate investment transactions. Further, the ability to request a waiver from the partial occupancy requirement is, in part, an acknowledgement that there may be circumstances where an FCU could prudently occupy a lesser percentage of the premises and still comply with the Act.

One commenter argued that there is no need for a prescriptive fifty percent occupancy requirement. Another commenter urged that the fifty percent occupancy threshold be removed or, alternatively, that the threshold be reduced to no more than twenty-five percent. A different commenter suggested “partially occupy” should be defined as “less-than-full occupancy that is material and visible actual usage.” The same commenter also suggested that the addition of an absolute prohibition on real estate speculation, analogous to NCUA's regulatory ban on credit union speculation on derivatives, could be adopted as an added safeguard against speculative real estate investing. One commenter noted the fifty percent threshold is somewhat ambiguous with respect to mixed-use properties and larger tracts of land. The same commenter recommended that the final rule revert to an earlier iteration of the regulatory definition, which at one point required only full occupancy of FCU property on a part-time basis.

The Board believes that removing the full occupancy requirement provides FCUs with greater flexibility in managing their real estate, and that it is important to maintain the partial occupancy requirement to ensure safety and soundness. The fifty percent standard provides FCUs with a clear guideline for achieving compliance, and the waiver provisions ensure further flexibility when warranted.

Several commenters asked what is meant by “a controlling interest in a CUSO.” As stated in the proposed rule, NCUA defines controlling interest in a CUSO under GAAP using FASB Accounting Standards Update (ASU) 805. This standard defines controlling interest as “the ability of an entity to direct the policies and management that guide the ongoing activities of another entity so as to increase its benefits and limit its losses from that other entity's activities.” 5

In addition, two commenters disagreed with the controlling interest requirement for CUSOs entirely. These commenters suggested that an FCU and its CUSO should be able to meet the partial occupancy threshold regardless of the amount of ownership interest the FCU has in the CUSO. One of the commenters further suggested that the types of entities with which an FCU may meet the fifty percent occupancy requirement should be expanded to include credit union industry “partners” or other credit union service providers.

The Board stated in the proposed rule that:

Further, the Board notes that this definition will ensure that any property acquired or held by an FCU is primarily utilized for a purpose that is necessary or incidental to its operations, as required by the Act.

Nearly half of the commenters offered input on the current rule's six-year regulatory timeframe for partial occupancy of improved and unimproved property. Of these, several urged that the regulatory timeframe for partial occupancy be eliminated entirely or, alternatively, be extended to ten years.

Three commenters recommended the rule be modified to allow ten years for partial occupancy of unimproved property or raw land. One commenter suggested that the occupancy requirement for unimproved property should be removed entirely. In addition, two commenters suggested that the occupancy waiver provision should be amended to require NCUA to grant waivers upon request unless there are specific safety and soundness concerns.

The Board notes that the final rule will retain the waiver provisions for the partial occupancy requirement, which allows an FCU to request a waiver of the six-year requirement. The Board believes the waiver process, as currently written, provides sufficient flexibility while protecting safety and soundness.

As discussed above, the proposed rule amends the excess capacity provision in NCUA's incidental powers rule to clarify that an FCU may lease or sell excess capacity in its facilities, but it need not anticipate that such excess capacity will be fully occupied by the FCU in the future. However, the sale or lease of excess capacity in equipment or services, including employee-sharing and data processing for third parties, would continue to be limited to circumstances where an FCU reasonably anticipates that such excess capacity will be taken up by the future expansion of services to members.

Four commenters expressed support for this aspect of the proposed rule and one commenter disagreed with it, stating that it would allow credit unions to exceed their authority under the Act. The Board does not believe that anything in this final rule will allow FCUs to exceed their authority under the Act.

Two commenters advocated the creation of an independent appeals process for adjudicating disagreements between NCUA and an FCU concerning the acquisition and use of FCU premises. The creation of such a process was not part of the proposed rule and is, therefore, outside the scope of this final rulemaking. The Board will, however, consider amending NCUA's appeals process in the coming year.

Finally, one commenter suggested that there should be a de minimis exception for fixed assets that are financially immaterial to the FCU's operations. This commenter asserted that such de minimis fixed assets should not be subject to any regulatory occupancy requirements, including the fifty percent rule and the six-year occupancy timeframe. The Board notes that the occupancy rule implements provisions of the Act. The Act does not distinguish certain fixed assets from other fixed assets based on financial materiality. The Board believes this final rule provides significant flexibility and regulatory relief to FCUs and does not include a de minimis exception.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires NCUA to prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the impact of a rule on small entities. A regulatory flexibility analysis is not required, however, if the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (defined for purposes of the RFA to include credit unions with assets less than $100 million) and publishes its certification and a short, explanatory statement in the Federal Register together with the rule. The final rule would provide regulatory relief by eliminating the need to develop a plan for full occupancy. Also, FCUs currently have limited flexibility to purchase real estate with excess capacity. NCUA certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit unions.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) applies to rulemakings in which an agency by rule creates a new paperwork burden on regulated entities or modifies an existing burden.7 For purposes of the PRA, a paperwork burden may take the form of either a reporting or a recordkeeping requirement, both referred to as information collections. The final rule provides regulatory relief to FCUs by eliminating the requirement that, if an FCU does not fully occupy premises acquired for future expansion within one year, it must have a board resolution in place by the end of that year with definitive plans for full occupation. The final rule does not impose new paperwork burdens. Rather, the final rule would relieve FCUs from the current requirement to have a board-approved plan for full occupation of its premises.

According to NCUA estimates, approximately 15 FCUs are required to develop a plan for full occupation of premises each year. Accordingly, the reduction to existing paperwork burdens that would result from the final is analyzed below:

Estimate of the reduced burden by eliminating the full occupancy planning requirement.

Estimated FCUs: 15.

Frequency of waiver request: Annual.

Reduced hour burden: 15 hours.

15 FCUs × 15 hours = 225 hours reduced burden.

In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, NCUA intends to obtain a modification of its OMB Control Number to reflect these changes. NCUA is submitting a copy of this rule to OMB, along with an application for a modification of the OMB Control Number.

The PRA and OMB regulations require that the public be provided an opportunity to comment on the paperwork requirements, including an agency's estimate of the burden of the paperwork requirements. The Board did not receive any comments on the PRA aspects of the rule.

Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. NCUA, an independent regulatory agency, as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order to adhere to fundamental federalism principles. Because the occupancy and incidental powers regulations apply only to FCUs, the final rule does 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. As such, NCUA has determined that this rule does not constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of the executive order.

NCUA has determined that this rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999.8

For the reasons stated above, NCUA amends 12 CFR parts 701 and 721 as follows:

I. Background

The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 (HMDA) (12 U.S.C. 2801-2810) requires most mortgage lenders located in metropolitan areas to collect data about their housing related lending activity. Annually, lenders must report their data to the appropriate Federal agencies and make the data available to the public. The Bureau's Regulation C (12 CFR part 1003) implements HMDA.

Prior to 1997, HMDA exempted certain depository institutions as defined in HMDA (i.e., banks, savings associations, and credit unions) with assets totaling $10 million or less as of the preceding year-end. In 1996, HMDA was amended to expand the asset-size exemption for these depository institutions. 12 U.S.C. 2808(b). The amendment increased the dollar amount of the asset-size exemption threshold by requiring a one-time adjustment of the $10 million figure based on the percentage by which the CPI-W for 1996 exceeded the CPI-W for 1975, and it provided for annual adjustments thereafter based on the annual percentage increase in the CPI-W, rounded to the nearest multiple of $1 million.

The definition of “financial institution” in § 1003.2 provides that the Bureau will adjust the asset threshold based on the year-to-year change in the average of the CPI-W, not seasonally adjusted, for each 12-month period ending in November, rounded to the nearest $1 million. For 2016, the threshold was $44 million. During the 12-month period ending in November 2016, the average of the CPI-W increased by 0.8 percent. This increase results in no change to the asset-size threshold when rounded to the nearest $1 million. Thus, the exemption threshold will remain at $44 million. Therefore, banks, savings associations, and credit unions with assets of $44 million or less as of December 31, 2016, are exempt from collecting data in 2017. An institution's exemption from collecting data in 2017 does not affect its responsibility to report data it was required to collect in 2016.

Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), notice and opportunity for public comment are not required if the Bureau finds that notice and public comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Pursuant to this final rule, comment 2(Financial institution)-2 in Regulation C, supplement I, is amended to update the exemption threshold. The amendment in this final rule is technical and non-discretionary, and it merely applies the formula established by Regulation C for determining any adjustments to the exemption threshold. For these reasons, the Bureau has determined that publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking and providing opportunity for public comment are unnecessary. Therefore, the amendment is adopted in final form.

Section 553(d) of the APA generally requires publication of a final rule not less than 30 days before its effective date, except (1) a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction; (2) interpretive rules and statements of policy; or (3) as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). At a minimum, the Bureau believes the amendments fall under the third exception to section 553(d). The Bureau finds that there is good cause to make the amendments effective on January 1, 2017. The amendment in this final rule is technical and non-discretionary, and it applies the method previously established in the agency's regulations for determining adjustments to the threshold.

Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not require an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis. 5 U.S.C. 603(a), 604(a).

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506; 5 CFR 1320), the agency reviewed this final rule. No collections of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act are contained in the final rule.

For the reasons set forth above, the Bureau amends Regulation C, 12 CFR part 1003, as set forth below:

I. Background

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) amended TILA to add section 129D(a), which contains a general requirement that an escrow account be established by a creditor to pay for property taxes and insurance premiums for certain first-lien higher-priced mortgage loan transactions. TILA section 129D also generally permits an exemption from the higher-priced mortgage loan escrow requirement for a creditor that meets certain requirements, including any asset-size threshold the Bureau may establish.

In the 2013 Escrows Final Rule,1 the Bureau established such an asset-size threshold of $2 billion, which would adjust automatically each year, based on the year-to-year change in the average of the CPI-W for each 12-month period ending in November, with rounding to the nearest million dollars.2 In 2015, the Bureau revised the criteria for small creditors, and rural and underserved areas, for purposes of certain special provisions and exemptions from various requirements provided to certain small creditors under the Bureau's mortgage rules.3 As part of this revision the Bureau made certain changes that affect how the asset-size threshold applies. The Bureau revised § 1026.35(b)(2)(iii)(C) and its accompanying commentary to include in the calculation of the asset-size threshold the assets of the creditor's affiliates that regularly extended covered transactions secured by first liens during the applicable period. The Bureau also added a grace period from calendar year to calendar year to allow an otherwise eligible creditor that exceeded the asset limit in the preceding calendar year (but not in the calendar year before the preceding year) to continue to operate as a small creditor with respect to transactions with applications received before April 1 of the current calendar year.4 5 For 2016, the threshold was $2.052 billion.

During the 12-month period ending in November 2016, the average of the CPI-W increased by .8 percent. As a result, the exemption threshold is increased to $2.069 billion for 2017. Thus, if the creditor's assets together with the assets of its affiliates that regularly extended first-lien covered transactions during calendar year 2016 are less than $2.069 billion on December 31, 2016, and it meets the other requirements of § 1026.35(b)(2)(iii), it will be exempt in 2017 from the escrow-accounts requirement for higher-priced mortgage loans and will also be exempt from the escrow-accounts requirement for higher-priced mortgage loans for purposes of any loan consummated in 2018 for which the application was received before April 1, 2018. The adjustment to the escrows exemption asset-size threshold will also increase the threshold for small-creditor portfolio and balloon-payment qualified mortgages under Regulation Z. The requirements for small-creditor portfolio qualified mortgages at § 1026.43(e)(5)(i)(D) reference the asset threshold in § 1026.35(b)(2)(iii)(C). Likewise, the requirements for balloon-payment qualified mortgages at § 1026.43(f)(1)(vi) reference the asset threshold in § 1026.35(b)(2)(iii)(C). Under § 1026.32(d)(1)(ii)(C), balloon-payment qualified mortgages that satisfy all applicable criteria in § 1026.43(f)(1)(i) through (vi) and (f)(2), including being made by creditors that have (together with certain affiliates) total assets below the threshold in § 1026.35(b)(2)(iii)(C), are also excepted from the prohibition on balloon payments for high-cost mortgages.

Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), notice and opportunity for public comment are not required if the Bureau finds that notice and public comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Pursuant to this final rule, comment 35(b)(2)(iii)-1 in Regulation Z is amended to update the exemption threshold. The amendment in this final rule is technical and merely applies the formula previously established in Regulation Z for determining any adjustments to the exemption threshold. For these reasons, the Bureau has determined that publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking and providing opportunity for public comment are unnecessary. Therefore, the amendment is adopted in final form.

Section 553(d) of the APA generally requires publication of a final rule not less than 30 days before its effective date, except (1) a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction; (2) interpretive rules and statements of policy; or (3) as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). At a minimum, the Bureau believes the amendments fall under the third exception to section 553(d). The Bureau finds that there is good cause to make the amendments effective on January 1, 2017. The amendment in this notice is technical and applies the method previously established in the agency's regulations for automatic adjustments to the threshold.

Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not require an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis. 5 U.S.C. 603(a), 604(a).

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506; 5 CFR 1320), the agency reviewed this final rule. No collections of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act are contained in the final rule.

For the reasons set forth above, the Bureau amends Regulation Z, 12 CFR part 1026, as set forth below:

On January 26, 2016, SBA published a final rule implementing changes to the size standards for a number of industries in NAICS Sectors 31-33, Manufacturing (81 FR 4469). As discussed in the preamble of the rule, SBA intended to amend paragraphs (a) and (b) of Footnote 5 to the table of size standards relating to NAICS 326211, Tire Manufacturing (except Retreading), by replacing the former Census classification codes 30111 and 30112 with the new Census Product Classification Codes 3262111 and 3262113. However, the amended text inadvertently omitted the new Census Product Classification code 3262111. This action corrects that omission, but does not affect the 1,500-employee small business size standard for NAICS 326211.

Accordingly, 13 CFR part 121 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics Model SAAB 2000 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 8, 2016 (81 FR 62024) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by an occurrence that was reported of rudder pedal restriction on a SAAB Model 2000 airplane with the LPWS installed, equipped with in-line heaters. The NPRM proposed to require installation of shrinkable tubes on the water piping of the BPWS. We are issuing this AD to prevent water spray in case of a failed pipe or coupling during water filling on the ground. This condition, if not corrected, could freeze parts of the flight control system, possibly resulting in reduced control 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 2016-0013, dated January 14, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics Model SAAB 2000 airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9056.

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

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

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

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

Saab has issued Service Bulletin 2000-38-012, dated August 20, 2015. The service information describes how to install shrinkable tubes on the water piping of the BPWS. 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 7 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it takes about 6 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $3,650 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $29,120 or $4,160 per product.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

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

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2006-10-16, Amendment 39-14600 (71 FR 28570, May 17, 2006) (“AD 2006-10-16”). AD 2006-10-16 applies to all The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 27, 2015 (80 FR 74052) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by reports of cracking found in the splice plates, hinge fittings, terminal fittings, the upper skin of the outboard and center sections, upper chord, and rear spar webs before reaching the inspection interval specified in AD 2006-10-16. Cracked and fractured Maraging steel fasteners were also found. The NPRM proposed to reduce the compliance time for certain inspections and add repetitive inspections for cracking of the splice plates, hinge fittings, terminal fittings, upper skin of the outboard and center sections, and rear spar webs in Zone B. The NPRM also proposed to require an inspection to determine whether fasteners are magnetic in Zone C, repetitive ultrasonic inspections for cracking and fractures of affected fasteners, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. The NPRM also added an optional modification, which would terminate certain repetitive inspections, provided post-modification inspections and corrective action are done if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct this cracking, which could lead to reduced structural capability of the outboard and center sections of the horizontal stabilizer and could result in loss of control of the airplane.

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.

Atlas Airlines, United Airlines, and The Boeing Company requested that we clarify the inspection required by the proposed AD. Atlas Airlines stated that the “Proposed AD Requirements” paragraph of the NPRM states that the proposed AD would retain all the requirements of AD 2006-10-16. Atlas Airlines also stated that paragraph (f) of AD 2006-10-16 is not included in the proposed AD and noted that paragraph (g)(3) of the proposed AD identifies only Groups 7 through 9 as the applicable groups for the Zone A inspections. Atlas Airlines asked for clarification of the Zone A inspections.

Boeing noted that AD 2006-10-16 includes Zone C inspections as specified in Part 5 of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 1, dated May 1, 2003, and included Zone A inspections for Groups 1 through 6. Boeing noted that these inspections have not been removed by Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015. Boeing also requested that we revise the proposed AD to address the Zone C inspections in Part 5 of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015, and the Zone A inspections for Groups 1 through 6.

United Airlines disagreed with not restating the requirements of AD 2006-10-16. United Airlines stated that operators might miss that Zone A inspections and Zone C, Part 5, inspections required by AD 2006-10-16 are intended to be mandated. United Airlines noted that although the preamble of the NPRM stated that all inspections of AD 2006-10-16 are retained, paragraph (g) of the proposed AD only specifies new requirements and does not include certain Zone A inspections and Zone C, Part 5, inspections.

We agree that clarification is necessary. As stated in the preamble to the NPRM, we intended to retain all requirements of AD 2006-10-16. However, the actions specified in the proposed AD do not include the inspections referred to by the commenters. We have determined that instead of including those actions in this final rule, we will issue this action as a stand-alone AD. Thus, AD 2006-10-16 is not superseded, making it clear that all actions in AD 2006-10-16 continue to be required. In addition, we have revised this AD to specify when accomplishing certain actions in this AD terminates actions specified in AD 2006-10-16. We have made the following changes:

• Revised paragraph (g)(1) of this AD to specify that accomplishing a Zone B inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD terminates the inspections required by paragraph (g) of AD 2006-10-16 for the inspected area only.

• Revised paragraph (g)(2) of this AD to specify that accomplishing a Zone B inspection required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD terminates the inspections required by paragraph (i) of AD 2006-10-16 for the inspected area only.

• Revised paragraph (g)(3) of this AD to specify that accomplishing Zone A and Zone B inspections required by paragraph (g)(3) of this AD terminates the inspections required by paragraphs (f), (i), and (l) of AD 2006-10-16 for the inspected area only.

• Added paragraph (i)(1)(iii) to this AD to clarify that accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD terminates inspections required by paragraph (g) of AD 2006-10-16 for Zone B, as specified in Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015, for the modified area only.

• Added paragraph (i)(1)(iv) to this AD to clarify that accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (i) of this AD terminates inspections required by paragraph (k) of AD 2006-10-16 for Zone C, as specified in Part 5 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015, for the modified area only.

• Added paragraph (i)(2)(ii) of this AD to clarify that accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (k) of AD 2006-10-16 for Zone C, as specified in Part 5 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015, for the inspected area only.

• Added paragraph (i)(3)(ii) of this AD to clarify that accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (i)(3) of this AD terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (i) of AD 2006-10-16 for Zone B, as specified in Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015, for the modified area only.

Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (i)(2) of the proposed AD to clarify which Zone C inspections are terminated. Boeing noted that paragraph (i)(2) of the proposed AD specifies that the actions terminate Zone C inspections specified in Part 6 of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015, and noted that Zone C inspections in Part 5 of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015, are also terminated.

We agree to clarify the terminating action for the Zone C inspections, and have revised paragraph (i)(2) of this AD accordingly.

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

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

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

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 Service Bulletin 747-55A2050, Revision 2, dated January 23, 2015. The service information describes procedures for accomplishing Zone A, Zone B, and Zone C inspections for cracking of the upper skin and upper rear spar chord of the outboard and center sections of the horizontal stabilizer, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. The service information also describes procedures for a magnetic inspection to determine the type of fasteners, ultrasonic inspections for cracking and fractures of affected fasteners, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. 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 116 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

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 DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), and DC-9-87 (MD-87) airplanes; and Model MD-88 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 22, 2016 (81 FR 56540) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by a report of fatigue cracking in a rear spar lower cap of the horizontal stabilizer. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for cracking of the rear spar lower caps of the horizontal stabilizer, post-modification and post-repair inspections, and corrective actions if necessary. The proposed AD also included an optional terminating fatigue life enhancement modification. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking in the rear spar lower caps of the horizontal stabilizer, which, paired with cracking in adjacent areas, could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We have considered the comment received. Boeing supported the NPRM.

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

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

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

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD80-55A072, dated April 8, 2016. The service information describes procedures for doing inspections for cracking of the rear spar lower caps of the horizontal stabilizer, post-modification and post-repair inspections, 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 395 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 26, 2016 (81 FR 58874) (“the NPRM”).

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-30, dated December 30, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The MCAI states:

The terminating action includes installation of a safety guide in the MLG fairing and an increase of the spacing between the MLG door and the fairing, which would terminate the repetitive inspections. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-8847.

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

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

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

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

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

We reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-041, dated March 28, 2013. The service information describes procedures for detailed inspections of the MLG fairing, fairing seal, door, and adjacent structures; replacement or repair of affected parts and fasteners and removal of the MLG door.

We also reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-049, dated May 26, 2015. The service information describes procedures for installation of a safety guide in the MLG fairing and an increase of the spacing between the MLG door and the fairing.

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 40 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

We have received no definitive data on the costs for the on-condition repairs that will be required based on the results of the inspection.

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements/removals that will be required based on the results of the required inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements/removals:

Any final order will be published in the Federal Register and may not be effective prior to January 20, 2017.

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) implements and enforces titles II and III of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, as amended. 21 U.S.C. 801-971. Titles II and III are referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” and the “Controlled Substances Import and Export Act,” respectively, and are collectively referred to as the “Controlled Substances Act” or the “CSA” for the purpose of this action. The DEA publishes the implementing regulations for these statutes in title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), chapter II. The CSA and its implementing regulations are designed to prevent, detect, and eliminate the diversion of controlled substances and listed chemicals into the illicit market while providing for the legitimate medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United States. Controlled substances have the potential for abuse and dependence and are controlled to protect the public health and safety.

Under the CSA, every controlled substance is classified into one of five schedules based upon its potential for abuse, its currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and the degree of dependence the drug or other substance may cause. 21 U.S.C. 812. The initial schedules of controlled substances established by Congress are found at 21 U.S.C. 812(c), and the current list of all scheduled substances is published at 21 CFR part 1308.

Section 201 of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811, provides the Attorney General with the authority to temporarily place a substance into schedule I of the CSA for two years without regard to the requirements of 21 U.S.C. 811(b) if she finds that such action is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). In addition, if proceedings to control a substance are initiated under 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1), the Attorney General may extend the temporary scheduling for up to one year. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(2).

Where the necessary findings are made, a substance may be temporarily scheduled if it is not listed in any other schedule under section 202 of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 812, or if there is no exemption or approval in effect for the substance under section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. 355. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1); 21 CFR part 1308. The Attorney General has delegated scheduling authority under 21 U.S.C. 811 to the Administrator of the DEA. 28 CFR 0.100.

Section 201(h)(4) of the CSA 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4), requires the Administrator to notify the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) of any intention to temporarily place a substance into schedule I of the CSA.1 The Acting Administrator transmitted notice of his intent to place 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA in schedule I on a temporary basis to the Assistant Secretary by letter dated April 22, 2016. The Assistant Secretary responded to this notice by letter dated May 2, 2016, and advised that based on a review by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), there were no investigational new drug applications or approved new drug applications for 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA or MDMB-FUBINACA. The Assistant Secretary also stated that the HHS had no objection to the temporary placement of 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA or MDMB-FUBINACA into schedule I of the CSA. 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA or MDMB-FUBINACA are not currently listed in any schedule under the CSA.

To find that placing a substance temporarily into schedule I of the CSA is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety, the Administrator is required to consider three of the eight factors set forth in 21 U.S.C. 811(c): The substance's history and current pattern of abuse; the scope, duration and significance of abuse; and what, if any, risk there is to the public health. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(3). Consideration of these factors includes actual abuse, diversion from legitimate channels, and clandestine importation, manufacture, or distribution. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(3).

A substance meeting the statutory requirements for temporary scheduling may only be placed in schedule I. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). Substances in schedule I are those that have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1).

Available data and information for 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA indicate that these synthetic cannabinoids (SCs) have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision.

SCs are substances synthesized in laboratories that mimic the biological effects of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. It is believed that SCs were first introduced on the designer drug market in several European countries as “herbal incense” before the initial encounter in the United States by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in November 2008. From 2009 to the present, misuse and abuse of SCs has increased in the United States with law enforcement encounters describing SCs applied onto plant material and in designer drug products intended for human consumption. It has been demonstrated that the substances and the associated designer drug products are abused for their psychoactive properties. With many generations of SCs having been encountered since 2009, 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA are some of the latest, and the abuse of these substances is negatively impacting communities.

As observed by the DEA and CBP, SCs originate from foreign sources, such as China. Bulk powder substances are smuggled via common carrier into the United States and find their way to clandestine designer drug product manufacturing operations located in residential neighborhoods, garages, warehouses, and other similar destinations throughout the country. According to online discussion boards and law enforcement encounters, applying by spraying or mixing the SCs with plant material provides a vehicle for the most common route of administration—smoking (using a pipe, a water pipe, or rolling the drug-laced plant material in cigarette papers).

5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA, and MDMB-FUBINACA have no accepted medical use in the United States. Use of these specific SCs has been reported to result in adverse effects in humans including deaths (see 3-Factor document in “Supporting and Related Material” section). Use of other SCs has resulted in signs of addiction and withdrawal, and based on the similar pharmacological profile of these six substances, it is believed that there will be similar observed adverse effects.

5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA are SCs that have pharmacological effects similar to the schedule I hallucinogen delta-Δ-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and temporarily and permanently controlled schedule I synthetic cannabinoid substances. In addition, the misuse of 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and/or MDMB-FUBINACA have been associated with either overdoses requiring emergency medical intervention or death (see factor 6). With no approved medical use and limited safety or toxicological information, 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA have emerged on the designer drug market, and the abuse of these substances for their psychoactive properties is concerning. The DEA's analysis is available in its entirety under “Supporting and Related Material” of the public docket for this action at www.regulations.gov under docket number DEA-443.

Synthetic cannabinoids have been developed over the last 30 years as tools for investigating the endocannabinoid system (e.g. determining CB1 and CB2 receptor activity). The first encounter of SCs within the United States occurred in November 2008 by CBP. Since then the popularity of SCs and their associated products has increased steadily as evidenced by law enforcement seizures, public health information, and media reports. 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA are SCs that have been recently encountered (see “Supporting and Related Material,” Factor 5). Multiple overdoses involving emergency medical intervention or deaths have been associated with 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA.

Research and clinical reports have demonstrated that SCs are applied onto plant material so that the material may be smoked as users attempt to obtain a euphoric and/or psychoactive “high,” believed to be similar to marijuana. Data gathered from published studies, supplemented by discussions on Internet discussion Web sites, demonstrate that these products are being abused mainly by smoking for their psychoactive properties. The adulterated products are marketed as “legal” alternatives to marijuana. In recent overdoses, 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA have been shown to be applied onto plant material, similar to the SCs that have been previously available.

Law enforcement personnel have encountered various application methods including buckets or cement mixers in which plant material and one or more SCs (including 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and/or MDMB-FUBINACA) are mixed together, as well as large areas where the plant material is spread out so that a dissolved SC mixture can be applied directly. Once mixed, the SC plant material is then allowed to dry before manufacturers package the product for distribution, ignoring any control mechanisms to prevent contamination or to ensure a consistent, uniform concentration of the substance in each package. Adverse health consequences may also occur from directly ingesting the substance(s) during the manufacturing process. 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA, similar to other SCs, have been encountered in form of dried leaves or herbal blends.

The designer drug products laced with SCs, including 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA, are often sold under the guise of “herbal incense” or “potpourri,” use various product names, and are routinely labeled “not for human consumption.” Additionally, these products are marketed as a “legal high” or “legal alternative to marijuana” and are readily available over the Internet, in head shops, or sold in convenience stores. There is an incorrect assumption that these products are safe, that they are a synthetic form of marijuana, and that labeling these products as “not for human consumption” is a legal defense to criminal prosecution.

A major concern, as reiterated by public health officials and medical professionals, is the targeting and direct marketing of SCs and SC-containing products to adolescents and youth. This is supported by law enforcement encounters and reports from emergency departments; however, all age groups have been reported by media as abusing these substances and related products. Individuals, including minors, are purchasing SCs from Internet Web sites, gas stations, convenience stores, and head shops.

SCs, including 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA, continue to be encountered on the illicit market regardless of scheduling actions that attempt to safeguard the public from the adverse effects and safety issues associated with these substances. Numerous substances are encountered each month, differing only by small modifications intended to avoid prosecution while maintaining the pharmacological effects. Law enforcement and health care professionals continue to report abuse of these substances and their associated products.

As described by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), many substances being encountered in the illicit market, specifically SCs, have been available for years but have reentered the marketplace due to a renewed popularity.

The threat of serious injury to the individual following the ingestion of 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA and other SCs persists. Numerous calls have been received by poison centers regarding the abuse of products potentially laced with SCs that have resulted in visits to emergency departments. Law enforcement continues to encounter novel SCs on the illicit market, including 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA (see factor 5 in “Supporting and Related Material”).

The following information details information obtained through NFLIS 2 (queried on November 7, 2016), including dates of first encounter, exhibits/reports, and locations.

5F-ADB: NFLIS—2,311 reports, first encountered in September 2014, locations include: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

5F-AMB: NFLIS—3,349 reports, first encountered in January 2014, locations include: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

5F-APINACA: NFLIS—1,936 reports, first encountered in August 2012, locations include: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

ADB-FUBINACA: NFLIS—942 reports, first encountered in March 2014, locations include: Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.

MDMB-CHMICA: NFLIS—227 reports, first encountered in March 2015, locations include: Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas.

MDMB-FUBINACA: NFLIS—507 reports, first encountered in July 2015, locations include: Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin, and West Virginia.

5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA have all been identified in overdose and/or cases involving death attributed to their abuse. Adverse health effects reported from these incidents involving 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and/or MDMB-FUBINACA have included: Nausea, persistent vomiting, agitation, altered mental status, seizures, convulsions, loss of consciousness and/or cardio toxicity. Large clusters of overdoses requiring medical care have been reported involving 5F-AMB, MDMB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and 5F-ADB. Reported deaths involving these SCs have included 5F-ADB (8); 5F-AMB (6); 5F-APINACA (1); ADB-FUBINACA (2); MDMB-CHMICA (4), European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction has reported an additional 12 deaths involving MDMB-CHMICA; and MDMB-FUBINACA (1) (see factor 6 in “Supporting and Related Material”).

In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811 (h)(3), based on the available data and information summarized above, the continued uncontrolled manufacture, distribution, importation, exportation, conduct of research and chemical analysis, possession, and abuse of 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA pose an imminent hazard to the public safety. The DEA is not aware of any currently accepted medical uses for these substances in the United States. A substance meeting the statutory requirements for temporary scheduling, 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1), may only be placed in schedule I. Substances in schedule I are those that have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. Available data and information for 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA indicate that these SCs have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. As required by section 201(h)(4) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4), the Administrator, through a letter dated April 22, 2016, notified the Assistant Secretary of the DEA's intention to temporarily place these six substances in schedule I.

This notice of intent initiates a temporary scheduling action and provides the 30-day notice pursuant to section 201(h) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h). In accordance with the provisions of section 201(h) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h), the Administrator considered available data and information, herein sets forth the grounds for his determination that it is necessary to temporarily schedule methyl 2-(1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1H-indazole-3-carboxamido)-3,3-dimethylbutanoate [5F-ADB; 5F-MDMB-PINACA]; methyl 2-(1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1H-indazole-3-carboxamido)-3-methylbutanoate [5F-AMB]; N-(adamantan-1-yl)-1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide [5F-APINACA, 5F-AKB48]; N-(1-amino-3,3-dimethyl-1-oxobutan-2-yl)-1-(4-fluorobenzyl)-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide [ADB-FUBINACA]; methyl 2-(1-(cyclohexylmethyl)-1H-indole-3-carboxamido)-3,3-dimethylbutanoate [MDMB-CHMICA, MMB-CHMINACA] and methyl 2-(1-(4-fluorobenzyl)-1H-indazole-3-carboxamido)-3,3-dimethylbutanoate [MDMB-FUBINACA] in schedule I of the CSA, and finds that the placement of these substances into schedule I of the CSA on a temporary basis is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety.

Because the Administrator hereby finds that it is necessary to temporarily place these SCs into schedule I to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety, any subsequent final order temporarily scheduling these substances will be effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register, and will be in effect for a period of two years, with a possible extension of one additional year, pending completion of the regular (permanent) scheduling process. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1) and (2). It is the intention of the Administrator to issue such a final order as soon as possible after the expiration of 30 days from the date of publication of this notice. 5F-ADB, 5F-AMB, 5F-APINACA, ADB-FUBINACA, MDMB-CHMICA and MDMB-FUBINACA will then be subject to the regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to the manufacture, distribution, importation, exportation, research, conduct of instructional activities, and chemical analysis and possession of a schedule I controlled substance.

The CSA sets forth specific criteria for scheduling a drug or other substance. Regular scheduling actions in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(a) are subject to formal rulemaking procedures done “on the record after opportunity for a hearing” conducted pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557. 21 U.S.C. 811. The regular scheduling process of formal rulemaking affords interested parties with appropriate process and the government with any additional relevant information needed to make a determination. Final decisions that conclude the regular scheduling process of formal rulemaking are subject to judicial review. 21 U.S.C. 877. Temporary scheduling orders are not subject to judicial review. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(6).

Section 201(h) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h), provides for an expedited temporary scheduling action where such action is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. As provided in this subsection, the Attorney General may, by order, schedule a substance in schedule I on a temporary basis. Such an order may not be issued before the expiration of 30 days from (1) the publication of a notice in the Federal Register of the intention to issue such order and the grounds upon which such order is to be issued, and (2) the date that notice of the proposed temporary scheduling order is transmitted to the Assistant Secretary. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1).

Inasmuch as section 201(h) of the CSA directs that temporary scheduling actions be issued by order and sets forth the procedures by which such orders are to be issued, the DEA believes that the notice and comment requirements of section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, do not apply to this notice of intent. In the alternative, even assuming that this notice of intent might be subject to section 553 of the APA, the Administrator finds that there is good cause to forgo the notice and comment requirements of section 553, as any further delays in the process for issuance of temporary scheduling orders would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest in view of the manifest urgency to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety.

Although the DEA believes this notice of intent to issue a temporary scheduling order is not subject to the notice and comment requirements of section 553 of the APA, the DEA notes that in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4), the Administrator will take into consideration any comments submitted by the Assistant Secretary with regard to the proposed temporary scheduling order.

Further, the DEA believes that this temporary scheduling action is not a “rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 601(2), and, accordingly, is not subject to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The requirements for the preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis in 5 U.S.C. 603(a) are not applicable where, as here, the DEA is not required by section 553 of the APA or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking.

Additionally, this action is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), section 3(f), and, accordingly, this action has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

This action will 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, in accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) it is determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons set out above, the DEA amends 21 CFR part 1308 as follows:

PBGC's regulation on Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4044) prescribes actuarial assumptions—including interest assumptions—for valuing plan benefits under terminating single-employer plans covered by title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The interest assumptions in the regulation are also published on PBGC's Web site (http://www.pbgc.gov).

The interest assumptions in Appendix B to Part 4044 are used to value benefits for allocation purposes under ERISA section 4044. Assumptions under the asset allocation regulation are updated quarterly and are intended to reflect current conditions in the financial and annuity markets. This final rule updates the asset allocation interest assumptions for the first quarter (January through March) of 2017.

The first quarter 2017 interest assumptions under the allocation regulation will be 1.87 percent for the first 20 years following the valuation date and 2.37 percent thereafter. In comparison with the interest assumptions in effect for the fourth quarter of 2016, these interest assumptions represent no change in the select period (the period during which the select rate (the initial rate) applies), a decrease of 0.11 percent in the select rate, and a decrease of 0.30 percent in the ultimate rate (the final rate).

PBGC has determined that notice and public comment on this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This finding is based on the need to determine and issue new interest assumptions promptly so that the assumptions can reflect current market conditions as accurately as possible.

Because of the need to provide immediate guidance for the valuation of benefits under plans with valuation dates during the first quarter of 2017, PBGC finds that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication.

PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866.

Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).

In consideration of the foregoing, 29 CFR part 4044 is amended as follows:

Background Description of Cape Hatteras National Seashore

Situated along the Outer Banks of North Carolina, Cape Hatteras National Seashore (Seashore or park) was authorized by Congress in 1937 and established in 1953 as the nation's first national seashore. Consisting of more than thirty thousand acres distributed along approximately 67 miles of shoreline, the Seashore is part of a dynamic barrier island system.

The Seashore contains important wildlife habitat created by dynamic environmental processes. Several species listed under the Endangered Species Act, including the piping plover, rufa subspecies of the red knot, and five species of sea turtles, are found within the park. The Seashore also serves as a popular recreation destination where users participate in a variety of activities.

In the NPS Organic Act (54 U.S.C. 100101), Congress granted the NPS broad authority to regulate the use of areas under its jurisdiction. The Organic Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the NPS, to “prescribe such regulations as the Secretary considers necessary or proper for the use and management of [National Park] System units.” 54 U.S.C. 100751(a).

Executive Order 11644, Use of Off-Road Vehicles on the Public Lands, was issued in 1972 in response to the widespread and rapidly increasing off-road driving on public lands “often for legitimate purposes but also in frequent conflict with wise land and resource management practices, environmental values, and other types of recreational activity.” Executive Order 11644 was amended by Executive Order 11989 in 1977, and together they are jointly referred to in this rule as the “E.O.” The E.O. requires Federal agencies that allow motorized vehicle use in off-road areas to designate specific areas and routes on public lands where the use of motorized vehicles may be permitted and to minimize user conflicts and resource impacts.

The NPS regulation at 36 CFR 4.10(b) implements the E.O. and requires that routes and areas designated for ORV use be promulgated as special regulations and that the designation of routes and areas must comply with 36 CFR 1.5 and E.O. 11644. It also states that ORV routes and areas may be designated only in national recreation areas, national seashores, national lakeshores, and national preserves. This rule is consistent with these authorities and with Section 8.2.3.1 (Motorized Off-road Vehicle Use) of NPS Management Policies 2006, available at: http://www.nps.gov/policy/mp/policies.html.

In 2010, the NPS completed the Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (ORV FEIS) for ORV use at the Seashore to guide the management and use of ORVs at the Seashore. As a part of the selected alternative, certain elements of the ORV FEIS were implemented through rulemaking. The final rule for ORV management at the Seashore was published in the Federal Register on January 23, 2012 (77 FR 3123) (2012 Final Rule).

On December 19, 2014, the President signed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (2014 Act). Section 3057 of the 2014 Act requires the Secretary of the Interior to consider three specific changes to the 2012 Final Rule regarding:

• Morning opening times of beaches that are closed to ORV use at night;

• Extending the dates for seasonal ORV routes; and

• The size and location of vehicle-free areas (VFAs).

On February 17, 2016, the NPS published the Consideration of Modifications to the Final Rule for Off-Road Vehicle Management Environmental Assessment (EA). The EA evaluated:

• The times that beach routes open to ORV use in the mornings;

• Extending the dates that seasonal ORV routes are open in the fall and spring; and

• Modifying the size and location of VFAs.

The EA also considered:

• Issuing ORV permits for different lengths of time;

• Revising some ORV route designations; and

• Providing access improvements for soundside locations on Ocracoke Island.

The EA, which contains a full description of the purpose and need for taking action, scoping, the alternatives considered, maps and the environmental impacts associated with the project, may be viewed on the NPS planning Web site at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/caha-orv-ea under the “Document List” link. Public comments on the EA were accepted until March 18, 2016. The EA resulted in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) that was signed on December 19, 2016 and is available at http://parkplanningfxsp0;.nps.gov/caha-orv-ea under the “Document List” link.

The NPS published a proposed rule on August 22, 2016 (81 FR 56550). The NPS accepted comments through the mail, hand delivery, and the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Comments were accepted through October 21, 2016. After considering the public comments and after additional review, the NPS did not make any changes to the proposed rule. A summary of comments and NPS responses is provided below.

1. Comment: Several commenters requested that all beaches or priority beaches at the Seashore be opened to ORV use at 6:00 a.m. or earlier when nighttime driving is restricted.

NPS Response: The rule states that ORV use is not allowed on designated routes in sea turtle nesting habitat before 6:00 a.m. between May 1 and September 14, and between September 15 and November 15 if sea turtles remain. This will ensure that there will be sufficient light for resource management staff to safely and properly complete their morning surveys for nesting activities. The actual opening times are not stated in the rule. They will be published by the NPS annually based on the civil twilight time at sunrise and sunset for each month that nighttime ORV restrictions are in place. Civil twilight is the period of time before sunrise and after sunset when the sun is less than 6 degrees below the horizon when there is enough visibility to conduct ordinary outdoor activities. From May through October these times range from 5:20 a.m. to 6:50 a.m. Allowing ORV access before 6:00 a.m. for the months when nighttime driving is restricted would not provide resource management staff enough light to complete their morning beach surveys properly.

2. Comment: One commenter was concerned that the rule does not identify criteria for setting the morning beach opening times and designating priority beaches that may open before 7:00 a.m. The commenter requested the NPS identify the priority beaches in the rule.

NPS Response: The location and times of priority beach openings are intentionally omitted from the rule to provide NPS management with the flexibility to adapt to changes in visitation patterns and workload associated with the demonstrated variability of wildlife nesting on beaches. The priority beaches are identified in the FONSI and will also be included in the Superintendent's Compendium and published annually in the park's ORV Brochure. After reviewing each season's visitation patterns, Seashore conditions, and wildlife nesting activity, the NPS will publish information about opening times for priority beaches.

3. Comment: Several commenters stated that having different opening times for different months and different beaches could confuse visitors.

NPS Response: The NPS understands this concern and intends to provide clear information and direction for all Seashore visitors. The NPS will clearly notify the public about opening times and locations by several methods. Priority beaches and opening times will be published at the beginning of each season in the Superintendent's Compendium, the ORV Brochure, and on the park Web site (www.nps.gov/caha). The Web site also provides a daily update on which ORV routes are open or closed due to wildlife nesting activities or Seashore conditions.

4. Comment: Several commenters suggested a variety of dates when seasonal ORV routes around the villages and Ocracoke Campground should be opened for ORV use. Commenters also requested expanded use periods for seasonal ORV routes that are not in front of villages or the Ocracoke Campground.

NPS Response: Extending the seasonal ORV route periods for six weeks or more was considered and dismissed during the EA process due to the higher visitation rates and larger staff requirements that would be needed to manage active turtle and bird nests during those periods. Because of wildlife nesting activity in the spring and late summer, the NPS's emphasis on providing a diversity of visitor experiences, and the importance of managing the workload of NPS staff, the rule does not make any changes to the dates for seasonal ORV routes other than the routes in front of villages and the Ocracoke Campground.

5. Comment: One commenter requested that the NPS open ORV routes on the Friday before spring break week if that date falls before the opening date identified in the rule.

NPS Response: The NPS considered this request, but there is no standard school spring break vacation week and this period varies substantially throughout the country. Opening the Friday before spring break would increase management complexity and make it more difficult to notify the public about the opening dates for the ORV season.

6. Comment: Commenters suggested a wide variety of modifications to the VFAs. Some commenters recommended prohibiting beach driving or increasing the number and size of VFAs. Other commenters sought substantial reductions of VFA mileage. Many commenters suggested changes to VFAs at specific ramps and routes throughout the Seashore, especially in and around the Cape Point area. One commenter requested that no changes to the existing VFAs be made, noting these are nesting areas where seasonal ORV use would introduce additional harassment of wildlife, disruption of habitat, and visitor conflicts.

NPS Response: When considering the modifications to the VFAs, the NPS began with the existing VFAs as a baseline, considered each of the VFAs along the Seashore, and identified particular places where changes could be made while remaining consistent with management requirements at the Seashore. Although the rule does not establish any VFAs directly, the rule includes changes to designated ORV routes that result in corresponding changes to the size and location of VFAs at the Seashore. The rule changes certain ORV routes to allow greater access on each of the islands without substantially impacting the balance of visitor opportunities, the complexity of staff workload, public safety, or sensitive wildlife species. Protective wildlife buffers will be in place, regardless of route designation, to protect beach nesting species both within ORV routes and VFAs. The specific changes to VFAs resulting from the rule will not change the implementation and effectiveness of these buffers. The VFAs at the Seashore, as modified by the rule, continue to allow for large areas where pedestrians can utilize the beach without ORVs.

7. Comment: One commenter requested Ramp 2—which the NPS proposed to open to ORV use in the proposed rule—be used only seasonally, or that the NPS designate the first 1/4 mile of the ORV route (south of Ramp 2) as a pass through only zone with no ORV parking allowed. The commenter suggested that these changes to the proposed rule would avoid visitor conflicts.

NPS Response: The realignment of Ramp 2 to the south, along with the construction of a pedestrian walkway (also accessible by people with disabilities) near the Coquina Beach bathhouse, should alleviate any potential safety issues associated with reopening Ramp 2 to ORV use. There are currently additional walking paths other than Ramp 2 that provide pedestrian access to Coquina Beach that will alleviate visitor conflicts. The NPS will post signs that direct pedestrians to those locations to avoid user conflicts on the realigned ramp. Following the opening of a realigned Ramp 2, the NPS will evaluate any visitor use conflicts and may implement an appropriately-sized no stopping zone if necessary.

8. Comment: One commenter requested that the NPS specify the proposed changes to permit durations in the rule, rather than in the Superintendent's Compendium.

NPS Response: Given the highly dynamic nature of the Seashore and tourism in the area, the NPS believes that it is prudent to provide management flexibility to NPS staff regarding the length of permits as circumstances change over time.

9. Comment: One commenter noted that redesignating Ramp 45 as a park road—a management action that was included in the EA—should have been stated in the proposed rule. The commenter raised concerns that designating an ORV route as a park road would set a precedent and could potential result in larger re-designations in the future.

NPS Response: Old Ramp 45 is an existing park road currently closed to vehicle traffic. The road continues to be maintained with culverts and a hard packed pervious surface. Unlike the designation of a route for ORV use, NPS regulations do not require a special regulation to reopen a park road to motor vehicle use. Reopening this road for vehicular use will not affect any other route or road within the Seashore.

This rule implements the selected action in the FONSI and amends the special regulation for ORV use at the Seashore as it relates to:

• The morning opening times of beaches that are closed to ORV use at night;

• The dates that some seasonal ORV routes are open in the fall and spring;

• The size and location of VFAs;

• The duration of ORV permits; and

• Other access improvements.

The rule states that ORV use is not allowed on designated routes in sea turtle nesting habitat (ocean intertidal zone, ocean backshore, dunes) before 6:00 a.m. between May 1 and September 14, and between September 15 and November 15 if sea turtles remain. Instead of establishing opening times for each ORV route in the rule, the NPS will publish the opening times for each route on an annual basis in the Superintendent's Compendium and on the park Web site (www.nps.gov/caha). This will give the Superintendent the flexibility to adjust opening times each year based on changing conditions at the Seashore and the ability of park staff to patrol and complete resource management inventories on beaches before they are opened to vehicle use. The NPS expects that most ORV routes will continue to open at 7:00 a.m. The NPS may open certain “priority” beach routes to ORV use before 7:00 a.m., but no earlier than 6:00 a.m. This will allow ORV users to access the more popular beaches earlier in the morning. NPS resource staff will patrol these “priority” beaches before opening so that park resources are protected even though earlier access will be allowed.

The rule extends the dates for ORV use of seasonal designated routes in front of the villages of Rodanthe, Waves, Salvo, Avon, Frisco, and Hatteras and the Ocracoke Campground. These routes will open two weeks earlier in the fall and close two weeks later in the spring, making these seasonal routes open to ORV use from October 15 through April 14. These seasonal extensions are in areas and at times of the year which will not result in measurable impacts to sensitive wildlife, visitor experience, safety, or workload complexity for park staff.

The changes in the rule to designated ORV routes will modify the size and location of VFAs and improve ORV access in some locations. This rule makes the following changes to the designated ORV routes at the Seashore. Ramps 2.5 and 59.5 will not be constructed and are therefore removed from the chart of designated ORV routes. Ramp 2 will be restored to ORV use, extending the existing ORV route approximately 0.5 miles to the north and providing ORV access to the route from either ramp 4 or ramp 2. Ramp 59 will continue to be open to ORV use, extending the existing year-round ORV route approximately 0.5 miles. The seasonal ORV route at ramp 34 will be extended approximately 1 mile to the north and the seasonal ORV route at ramp 23 will be extended approximately 1.5 miles to the south. These changes will slightly increase ORV access on each of the islands without measurably impacting visitor experience, safety, sensitive wildlife species, or the workload complexity for NPS staff.

The existing regulations for the Seashore state that annual permits are valid for the calendar year for which they are issued, and that seven-day permits are valid from the date of issue. This rule removes this provision and instead states that ORV permits are valid for the dates specified in the permit. The Superintendent will publish the standard duration of permits in the Compendium and on the park's Web site (www.nps.gov/caha). The standard duration of permits may be changed from time to time based upon circumstances at the Seashore and visitation patterns. To start, however, ORV permits will be valid for one year from the date of issuance instead of being valid for the calendar year of issuance, and the existing 7-day ORV permit will be replaced by a 10-day ORV permit. The 10-day ORV permit will allow many ORV users to access the beaches over two weekends, depending upon when they arrive at the Seashore.

The NPS intends to continue to recover the costs of administering the ORV permit program under 54 U.S.C. 103104.

The NPS is removing the existing ORV route designation along Devil Shoals Road (also referred to as Dump Station Road). An ORV permit will no longer be required to travel this road because motor vehicles are allowed on park roads without a permit under general NPS regulations. This route is therefore removed as a designated ORV route in the rule. Devil Shoals Road is an existing dirt road located across North Carolina State Highway 12 from the Ocracoke Campground that has been maintained as part of the park's road network. This road meets NPS road design standards as a Class II connector road than can provide normal passenger vehicle access to park areas of scenic and recreational interest on a dirt/gravel surface. This change allows for limited vehicular soundside access on Ocracoke Island without the requirement to purchase an ORV permit.

This rule extends the existing Cape Point bypass route south of ramp 44 by approximately 0.4 miles to the north so that it joins with ramp 44. This rule also extends the existing bypass route by approximately 600 feet to the south to provide additional ORV access near Cape Point when the ORV route along the beach is closed for safety or resource protection.

This rule makes several changes to the language in the existing ORV regulation to clarify and more accurately reflect existing conditions. Ramp 25.5 is renamed “ramp 25”; ramp 32.5 is renamed “ramp 32”; ramp 47.5 is renamed “ramp 48”; the description of the soundside ORV route at Little Kinnakeet is changed to reflect that it begins just west of the Kinnakeet lifesaving structures; and additional details are added to further clarify where existing routes terminate (e.g. the routes adjacent to ramps 32, 48, and 63 do not end exactly at the ramp). These clarifying changes do not increase or decrease ORV access at the Seashore.

The changes to routes and ramps made as a result of this rule are available at http://parkplanningfxsp0;.nps.gov/caha-orv-ea.

As discussed previously, the E.O. applies to ORV use on federal public lands that is not authorized under a valid lease, permit, contract, or license. Section 3(4) of E.O. 11644 provides that ORV “areas and trails shall be located in areas of the National Park system, Natural Areas, or National Wildlife Refuges and Game Ranges only if the respective agency head determines that off-road vehicle use in such locations will not adversely affect their natural, aesthetic, or scenic values.” Since the E.O. clearly was not intended to prohibit all ORV use everywhere in these units, the term “adversely affect” does not have the same meaning as the somewhat similar terms “adverse impact” or “adverse effect” commonly used in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Under NEPA, a procedural statute that provides for the study of environmental impacts, the term “adverse effect” refers to any effect, no matter how minor or negligible.

Section 3(4) of the E.O., by contrast, does not prescribe procedures or any particular means of analysis. It concerns substantive management decisions, and must instead be read in the context of the authorities applicable to such decisions. The Seashore is an area of the National Park System. Therefore, the NPS interprets the E.O. term “adversely affect” consistent with its NPS Management Policies 2006. These policies require the NPS to allow only “appropriate uses” of parks and to avoid “unacceptable impacts” to park resources or values. The NPS has evaluated this rule and confirmed that it complies with these policies.

Specifically, this rule will not impede the attainment of the Seashore's desired future conditions for natural and cultural resources as identified in the ORV FEIS. The NPS has determined this rule will not unreasonably interfere with the atmosphere of peace and tranquility, or the natural soundscape maintained in natural locations within the Seashore. Therefore, within the context of the E.O., ORV use on the ORV routes amended by this rule (which are also subject to safety and resource closures and other species management measures that will be implemented under this rule) will not adversely affect the natural, aesthetic, or scenic values of the Seashore.

Section 8(a) of the E.O. requires NPS to monitor the effects of the use of off-road vehicles on lands under its jurisdiction. On the basis of the information gathered, NPS shall from time to time amend or rescind designations of areas or other actions taken pursuant to the E.O. as necessary to further the policy of the E.O. The existing ORV FEIS and Record of Decision identify monitoring and resource protection procedures, and desired future conditions to provide for the ongoing and future evaluation of impacts of ORV use on protected resources. The Superintendent has the authority under this rule and under 36 CFR 1.5 to close portions of the Seashore as needed to protect park resources and values, and public health and safety.

Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not significant.

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. It directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

This rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). This certification is based on information contained in a report entitled, “Benefit-Cost and Regulatory Flexibility Analyses: Special Regulations of Off-Road Motor Vehicles at Cape Hatteras National Seashore”, available for public review at: http://parkplanningfxsp0;.nps.gov/caha-orv-ea. According to that report, no entities, small or large, are directly regulated by this rule, which regulates visitors' use of ORVs. The courts have held that the RFA requires an agency to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis of small entity impacts only when a rule directly regulates them. Therefore, agencies must assess the impacts on directly regulated entities, but are not required to analyze in a regulatory flexibility analysis the indirect effects from rules on small entities.

This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2) of the SBREFA. This rule:

(a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.

(b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.

(c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. The designated ORV routes are located entirely within the Seashore, and will not result in direct expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments. This rule addresses public use of NPS lands, and imposes no requirements on other agencies or governments. Therefore, a statement containing the information required by the UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required.

This rule does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630. Access to private property located within or adjacent to the Seashore will not be affected, and this rule does not regulate uses of private property. Therefore, a takings implication assessment is not required.

Under the criteria in section 1 of Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. This rule only affects use of NPS-administered lands and imposes no requirements on other agencies or governments. A federalism summary impact statement is not required.

This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Specifically, this rule:

(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and

(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.

The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and under the Department's tribal consultation policy and have determined that tribal consultation is not required because the rule will have no substantial direct effect on federally recognized Indian tribes.

This rule does not contain any new collection of information that requires approval by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the PRA of 1995. OMB has approved the information collection requirements associated with NPS Special Park Use Permits and has assigned OMB Control Number 1024-0026 (expires 12/31/2016 and in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10, the agency may continue to conduct or sponsor this collection of information while the submission is pending at OMB). We estimate the annual burden associated with this information collection to be 8,500 hours per year. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under NEPA is not required because the NPS issued a FONSI. The EA and FONSI are available at http://parkplanningfxsp0;.nps.gov/caha-orv-ea under the “Document List” link. These documents contain a full description of the alternatives that were considered, the environmental impacts associated with the project, public involvement, and other supporting documentation. The NPS considered public comments made on the EA in drafting this rule. The NPS has evaluated substantive comments received on the proposed rule to develop the final rule.

This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

The primary authors of this regulation were Russel J. Wilson, Chief Regulations, Jurisdiction and Special Park Uses, National Park Service; and Jay Calhoun, Regulations Program Specialist, National Park Service.

In consideration of the foregoing, the National Park Service amends 36 CFR part 7 as follows:

Final prices are available under Docket Number R2017-1 on the Postal Regulatory Commission's Web site at www.prc.gov.

The Postal Service's final rule includes: Changes to prices, several mail classification updates, mailpiece marking changes, modifications to mailpiece weights and mail preparation categories, multiple product simplification efforts, a few minor revisions to the DMM to condense language and eliminate redundancy, a change to the redemption period of a money order claim from two years to one year, the addition of Official Mail Accounting System (OMAS) stamp shipment fee language, and updates to Enterprise Post Office Box Online (ePOBOL) process that change payment periods for online Post Office Box activity. Changes to Collect On Delivery will be published in a future final rule.

The Postal Service received 21 formal responses encompassing 34 comments on our price-change related proposal. Five responses included comments regarding more than one issue.

Nine comments requested that the Postal Service reconsider its decision to rename Standard Mail to USPS Marketing Mail. The commenters suggested that using the term “marketing” would indicate “advertising mail” or “junk mail” and cause the mail to have a lower “open rate”. Customers were unclear how a name change would encourage more people to use the mail.

Additional comments asked about the indicia, labeling criteria, transition period, and the lack of discussion with the industry and supportive research that would support such a measure that could be costly to both the USPSTM and the mailing industry.

One commenter believed the change would help promote the use of mail for marketing; while another was willing to explore an 18-month transition period before any changes to indicia would be required.

The Postal Service is updating the name to reflect vibrancy and to breathe new life into the former “Third-Class Mail” and “Standard Mail”. We expressed a desire at the National Postal Forum and through MTAC in early 2016 to improve the position of Standard Mail in the marketplace and to improve its perception.

In response to feedback from the mailing community, the new indicia or postage markings should not be used for letter or flat mail until January 2018 at the earliest. Tray label and pallet markings will be deferred until mid-2017 at the earliest. Other types of changes, such as changes to postage statements and forms, can move forward with the January 2017 price change. This phased transition period will allow both hardware and software changes to be implemented successfully.

Three commenters requested clarification on the pricing methodology for computing prices for First-Class Mail up to 3.5 ounces, and for residual pieces from either a presorted or automation mailing.

One comment suggested that heavier letters might slow down processing for mail service providers. The same commenter wanted to know whether the next price increase would be within the existing CPI allowances for the existing product, or the USPS would seek higher pricing based on this current proposed change.

Additional comments cited the lack of DMM language in the proposed rule identifying the types of pieces to which the weight increase changes would apply (such as enveloped pieces only, envelopes containing discs, heavy letters only, etc.), and clarifying the barcode placement for such pieces.

There are no changes to the pricing methodology for residual mail pieces. Also, there are no changes to the requirements for enveloped mail pieces, heavy letters, or envelopes containing discs. The market dominant price change will be done using the Centralized Accounting Postage System (CAPS), and all applicable DMM sections have been updated in this final rule.

One commenter asked if the new Labeling List 104 was being proposed as an added convenience.

Use of the new labeling list is optional.

Three commenters requested clarification of the USPS Marketing Mail weight limits. One wanted to know if the Notice 123, Price List would be updated to reflect these changes. Another requested clarification regarding the barcode clear zone.

USPS Marketing Mail automation letters weight will increase to 3.5 ounces, eliminating the previous piece/pound price for 3.3 to 3.5 ounces. Automation letters over 3.5 ounces will pay the applicable flats prices, however, for non-automation letters; the weight is up to 4 ounces.

Notice 123, Price List, will be updated to reflect all the piece/pound and weight changes and will be available on Postal Explorer at pe.usps.com beginning January 22, 2017. The applicable DMM sections regarding barcode clear zones are also updated with this final rule

Three comments were received. One comment stated that the Postal Service has not considered the unintended effects of the proposed rule change, and the associated loss of revenue, and suggested withdrawing this change. The commenter suggested that many mailers will take advantage of the rule change by combining more mailpieces, thus reducing the number of pieces entered and the associated revenue, while increasing the average cost to handle those pieces.

Another comment wanted clarification regarding the effect of this change on booklets and folded self-mailers.

Lastly, one comment stated that raising the weight limit on the piece/pound break is a great move as long as the rate is not raised to make up for the resulting lost revenue.

There will be no changes to the parameters of booklets or Folded Self-Mailers.

Two comments requested clarification about the elimination of permit and annual mailing fees, specifically with regard to Bound Printed Matter and the QBRM quarterly fee.

A permit application fee and annual mailing fee must be paid for any destination entry Bound Printed Matter flats (except for qualifying Full-service Intelligent Mail barcode mailings). There is no application fee or annual mailing fee if a mailer uses Bound Printed Matter to mail parcels only.

There is no change to the QBRM quarterly fee at this time.

Two comments addressed the combining of 3-Digit and AADC letters, requesting clarification regarding the mandatory origin 3-Digit trays for the local SCF area, and the use of labeling lists L801 and L003.

Labeling list L003 will be combined with L801 with the following exceptions. With this final rule, effective January 22, 2017, all First-Class and Standard Mail automation/machinable letters will no longer be sorted to the 3 Digit level. They will be sorted to the AADC level, after optional 5-Digit sort, whether they are Destinating AADC trays or Originating AADC trays. The current requirement that origin SCF mail be sorted down to 3-Digit trays will be eliminated. There is no minimum quantity for Origin AADC trays; however, less bundling should result in fuller trays, and the use of many fewer trays. The entry price is the same. The L801 will be applicable to all of this type of mail.

The use of 3 Digit trays will still apply to Nonmachinable letters in all three classes, and Periodicals Machinable/Automation prices. Destinating and Originating 3 Digit trays can still be made for these three classes of Nonmachinable letters along with Periodicals machinable/auto letters. The origin 3-Digit tray preparation will thus remain the same for all Nonmachinable letters and Periodicals machinable/automation letters. Labeling List 002 will be used, which may involve L003 for 3-Digit schemes.

One organization submitted two comments suggesting that a price increase for commercial USPS Marketing Mail flats would result from increasing the pound rate and decreasing the per piece rate; producing a potential 4-10 percent increase in postage costs for their mailings.

Comments from comparable mailers expressed satisfaction with the prices as proposed. [A request for a recent postage statement so that USPS could do a before-and-after analysis to see if correct prices were being charged was not received.]

Two comments were received. One strongly supported the proposal to eliminate the FSS-specific price structures for Periodicals, USPS Marketing Mail, and Bound Printed Matter; however, the commenter disagreed with the proposal to leave the 250-pound minimum intact, fearing the unintended consequences of curtailing the benefits sought to be realized by the restoration of a more rational price structure.

Another comment asked if the Notice 123 would be updated and if FSS facility preparation would become mandatory.

The 250-pound minimum requirements will remain intact. The Notice 123, Price List, will be updated on January 22, 1017, to remove all pricing related to FSS preparation. Additionally, FSS facility preparation will be optional.

One comment asked what indicia changes are proposed, and whether USPS data under the combined permit would be broken down by product.

There will be no changes to current procedures. Each product must be identified for volume reporting purposes.

One comment regarding the Informed Delivery enhancement suggested that the process would add another level of complexity and potential for errors, thereby, increasing costs.

Informed Delivery is outside the scope of the price changes addressed in this final rule.

We received three comments of a general nature. One comment suggested that DMM exhibit 708.7.1.1 was missing an indicator for presorted Bound Printed Matter flats, and another requested that educational webinars should be provided on Premium Forwarding Service and Share Mail.

The DMM will be updated as part of the January 22, 2017, price change implementation. Educational seminars will be presented on various subjects in the near future.

As background, on December 18, 2013, the Postal Service began to require bundle and pallet preparation of flat-size Standard Mail®, Periodicals, and Bound Printed Matter mailpieces for delivery within ZIP CodesTM served by FSS processing (78 FR 76533-76548). This requirement was incorporated into the DMM on January 26, 2014. Subsequently, on May 31, 2015, the Postal Service introduced FSS specific price structures for flat-sized Bound Printer Matter, Standard Mail, and Periodicals mailpieces, pursuant to PRC Order no. 2472, issued on May 7, 2015. This final rule removes all FSS specific pricing structures from Periodicals, Standard Mail and Bound Printed Matter. One change, for example, requires mailers to add Optional Endorsement Lines (OELs) on each FSS scheme mailpiece. For FSS preparation, mailers place qualifying mailpieces from all price categories into a separate pool for each individual 5-digit FSS scheme combination.

All carrier route Bound Printed Matter (BPM), carrier route Periodicals and carrier route (except saturation) Standard Mail flats meeting the standards in DMM 201.6.2 must be sorted to FSS schemes, properly bundled and placed on or in pallets, trays, sacks or approved containers, for FSS scheme ZIP Code combinations within the same facility. Mailings (excluding saturation mailings of Standard Mail) with non-presorted BPM flats may be included in FSS preparation, but will continue to be ineligible for presorted or carrier route prices.

To reiterate, all mailpieces in a 5-digit scheme FSS bundle must be identified with an OEL, as described in DMM 708.7.0. Mailpieces entered under a combined mailing of Standard Mail and Periodicals flats (DMM 705.15.0) still include class and price markings, applicable to the price paid, in addition to the OEL.

Periodicals, Standard Mail, and Bound Printed Matter flats properly included in a FSS scheme bundle qualify for the piece price applied prior to inclusion in the FSS scheme pool with the following exceptions for Standard Mail:

1. A carrier route mailpiece in a FSS bundle on a FSS scheme pallet will receive the Basic CR-Bundles/Pallet price.

2. A carrier route mailpiece in a FSS bundle on a FSS facility pallet will receive the Basic CR price.

Currently, there are four presort levels for FCM Commercial Automation Letters and Cards: Mixed AADC, AADC, 3-Digit, and 5-Digit. To help simplify the pricing structure, the Postal Service implemented the same price for AADC Automation Letters (Cards) and 3-Digit Automations Letters (Cards) in Docket No. R2012-3. The Postal Service is now combining AADC and 3-Digit presort levels into one sortation. The new sortation name will be AADC. The existing labeling List 801 will drive the FCM AADC separations, and origin entry separations, based on labeling List 002, will be modified to reflect origin entry AADC separations.

Currently, the “up to” weight standard for FCM Commercial Machinable Letters is 3.3 ounces. This lower weight break of up to 3.3 ounces is being increased due to mail processing improvements. Since machinable letters must follow the standards for Automation Letters (except for IMb), the same weight maximum should apply. Based on this, the Postal Service will increase the weight maximum from 3.3 ounces to 3.5 ounces. This change does not apply to the maximum weight of Booklets which are capped at 3.0 ounces.

Currently, the same price applies for one- and two-ounce pieces for each individual mail sortation level for FCM Commercial Automation Letters. With this final rule there will be one price for up to 3.5 ounces for each individual mail sortation level for FCM Commercial Automation Letters. This will also apply to mixed-weight FCM Residual mailings up to 3.5 ounces. The current preparation requirements for non-blended trays, such as one ounce, up to two ounces, and now extending to 3.5 ounces will continue. This change does not include FCM single-piece letters (non-residual) or FCM Flats.

The Postal Service will rename Alternate Postage as Share Mail. This implements a proposal published in the June 9, 2016, Postal Bulletin (Issue #22443). Share Mail allows Postal Service customers to distribute single-piece FCM letters or cards to consumers, who may in turn mail those pieces to any domestic address, without having to affix postage. Share Mail pieces are permitted to weigh up to one ounce each. Payment is collected electronically from the customer's Postage Due and Centralized Accounting Postage System (CAPS) Account. Invoicing is performed manually, by the Postal Service's Share Mail Program Office in Marketing. To continue the Postal Service's efforts to simplify its product line, the Share Mail payment tiers will be collapsed into one, and upfront postage payment requirements will be eliminated. Unique Intelligent Mail barcodes are no longer required nor is a signed Marketing Agreement. Picture Permit will no longer be available in order to help expedite the approval process. A customer who wishes to participate must submit a request to the Share Mail Program Office along with production pieces to ensure readability for postal processing. Share Mail relies on Intelligent Mail barcode (IMb) technology and scan data collected as the mailpiece travels through the mailstream to determine piece counts, so readability is paramount.

The Postal Service will eliminate the FSS specific price structures for Periodicals Outside-County. FSS preparation will still be required and all FSS marking requirements will remain as is. Outside-County Periodicals flats properly included in a FSS scheme bundle will qualify for the price applied prior to inclusion in the FSS scheme pool. If a FSS scheme pallet is drop-shipped to a DFSS facility, the pallet will receive Carrier Route pallet pricing. If a FSS facility pallet is drop-shipped to a DFSS facility the pallet will receive DSCF pallet pricing. Qualifying FSS scheme pieces entered at a DFSS facility will receive DSCF pound pricing. FSS scheme bundles on an FSS scheme pallet will receive carrier route bundle prices. FSS scheme bundles on an FSS facility pallet will receive 3-digit/SCF bundle pricing. FSS scheme and facility sack/trays or other authorized container will receive 3-digit/SCF sack/tray prices.

The Postal Service will rename Standard Mail as “USPS Marketing Mail”. This name change will better communicate to our customers the message that Standard Mail fits into their marketing mix.

To help smooth the transition for this change, the Postal Service will modify postage statements and the DMM for January 2017 and implement other changes to postal forms or documents during the normal update cycles. The initial implementation date for mailers to adopt the new USPS Marketing Mail abbreviations (such as MKT in lieu of STD) is July 1, 2018. Abbreviations and examples of permit imprints will be available in a future Postal Bulletin.

The Postal Service is eliminating FSS specific price structures for Bound Printed Matter Flats. FSS preparation will still be required, and all FSS marking requirements will remain in place. Bound Printed Matter flat pieces included in an FSS scheme bundle will qualify for the zone and entry piece pricing and pound pricing applicable to the mailing piece before inclusion in the FSS scheme pool. If an FSS container is drop shipped to a DFSS facility, those pieces will receive DSCF pricing.

Currently there are four presort levels for Standard Mail and Standard Mail Nonprofit Automation Letters: Mixed AADC Automation Letters, AADC Automation Letters, 3-Digit Automation Letters, and 5-Digit Automation Letters. To simplify the pricing structure, the Postal Service implemented the same price for AADC Automation Letters and 3-Digit Automation Letters in Docket No. R2013-1. The Postal Service is combining these two presort levels (AADC and 3-Digit) into one new sortation which will be named AADC.

Currently, the “up to” weight standard for Standard Mail and Standard Mail Nonprofit Machinable Letters is 3.3 ounces. This lower “weight break” is no longer needed due to improvements in mail processing equipment. Since machinable letters must follow the standards for Automation Letters (except for the IMb standards), the weight maximum should also apply. Accordingly, the Postal Service will increase the weight maximum from 3.3 ounces to 3.5 ounces. This change does not include Standard Mail Ride-Along mailpieces which are capped at 3.3 ounces and are inserted into a host Periodicals mailpiece.

It is important that both the Industry and the Postal Service evaluate the effects of higher weight breaks for First-Class Mail automation letters and cards along with Standard Mail letters. Collaboration and feedback throughout calendar year 2017 will be critical in helping to determine whether higher weights cause processing or address quality metrics to be put at risk.

There are currently six volume tiers for Standard Mail Commercial and Nonprofit Simple Samples. Based on the volume thresholds currently used by most customers, the Postal Service will collapse the existing six tiers into two new tiers: Volumes up to and including 200,000 pieces, and volumes greater than 200,000 pieces.

The Postal Service will eliminate the FSS-specific price structures within Standard Mail and Standard Mail Nonprofit. FSS preparation will still be required and all FSS marking requirements will remain intact.

Standard Mail and Standard Mail Nonprofit flats properly included in a FSS scheme pool will qualify for the price applied prior to the FSS scheme pool with the following exceptions:

1. A carrier route mailpiece in an FSS bundle on an FSS scheme pallet will receive the Basic CR-Bundles/Pallet price, and

2. A carrier route mailpiece in a FSS bundle on an FSS facility pallet will receive the Basic CR price.

If an FSS pallet is drop shipped to a DFSS facility, those pieces will receive DSCF pricing.

The current piece/pound price structure for Standard Mail and Standard Mail Nonprofit Flats, Nonautomation Letters, and Nonmachinable Letters does not provide a simple, clear view of the actual price of a mailing, especially if it includes nonidentical-weight pieces between 3.3 and 4 ounces. The Postal Service will increase the piece price weight break structure from 3.3 ounces to 4.0 ounces for Standard Mail and Standard Mail Nonprofit Flats, and Nonautomation and Nonmachinable Letters. Pieces up to 4 ounces will pay the same price and a pound price will apply over 4 ounces. This will not include Nonautomation Machinable Letters.

Business Reply Mail (BRM) currently consists of letters, flats, and parcels. Occasionally, BRM customers may choose to use Business Reply Mail for return parcels because they possess a BRM permit for inbound correspondence. The Postal Service will waive the annual permit fee for those customers using BRM exclusively for return parcels. This will align BRM parcels with other returns products. BRM permit fees for letters and flats, and for weight-averaged BRM letters, flats and parcels, will remain.

The Postal Service is also eliminating the annual permit fees for Business Reply customers who use only QBRM Basic and High Volume Qualified for letters and cards. All other fees and postage pricing remain intact.

The Postal Service will eliminate the fees for certain outbound and return permits used for parcel shipments including associated annual account maintenance fees. This will streamline the application and returns process, and eliminate the need to pay permit application fees for additional entry points. Shipping Products included under this umbrella are outbound shipments of Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, First-Class Package Service, Parcel Select (including Parcel Select Lightweight), Bound Printed Matter (parcels only), Media Mail, and Library Mail, as well as for return shipments of MRS, Parcel Return Service and BRM (parcels only).

Standard Mail letters and flats mailers that use this service are charged the Forwarding Fee via Address Correction Service (ACS) billing which is managed by the ACS Department of Address Management Systems in Memphis, TN. The ACS data file, Shipping Notice data file, and the Invoice data file have an implied decimal position that is conducive to 2-decimal places for address correction services. When mailers use these files to track their ACS fees and costs, they must recognize that the Forwarded Fee product codes have an implied 3-decimal place price and must manipulate the data files provided to them through ACS so that the decimal place differences are recognized in all of the data files provided via ACS. This would adjust the Standard Mail Forwarding Fee to 2-decimal point places to allow mailers to track their ACS fees and costs without making adjustments for the Forwarding Fees.

To be consistent with Banking Industry Standards and other companies' comparable money order offerings, the Postal Service will change the time limit for claims for improper payment to a limit of one year. This language will be updated on the reverse side of the domestic and international money order form so the purchaser is aware of the time limit.

The Postal Service plans to allow Enterprise PO Boxes Online customers to modify their current payment period to align their multiple PO Boxes, Caller Service, and Reserve payments to one due date per year, when using an Enterprise Payment Account (EPA). Eligible customers will be allowed to pay pro-rated fees on a one-time basis to align all payments to a selected annual renewal date in the future. This method is optional and will be available for all of an eligible customer's PO Boxes and Caller Service numbers. When the true-up date is reached they will continue to pay for the 12 month term as committed when first enrolled in the Enterprise Payment Account.

Federal agencies have the option today to order stamps from the USPS Stamp Fulfillment Services in Kansas City and to pay for the stamps through their Official Mail Accounting System (OMAS) accounts. It has been a long-standing practice to charge customers other than federal agencies a nominal handling fee for all purchases ordered through Stamp Fulfillment Services. Beginning January 1, 2017, these fees will apply to federal agencies using OMAS.

The handling fee schedule can be found in section 1560 of the Mail Classification Schedule, under References, on the Postal Regulatory Commission Web site at http://www.prc.gov/.

The Postal Service will provide additional resources to assist customers with this price change for competitive products. These tools include price lists, downloadable price files, and Federal Register Notices, which may be found on the Postal Explorer® Web site at pe.usps.com.

The Postal Service adopts the following changes to Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations. See 39 CFR 111.1.

Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.

On October 12, 2016 (81 FR 70382), the EPA proposed to determine that the Eastern San Luis Obispo ozone NAA has attained the 2008 ozone standard by the applicable attainment date of July 20, 2106, based on complete, quality-assured and certified ambient air quality monitoring data for the 2013-2015 monitoring period. San Luis Obispo County is the northern-most county within the air basin designated by California as the South Central Coast Air Basin. The NAA encompasses roughly the eastern half of San Luis Obispo County. For the precise boundaries of the Eastern San Luis Obispo 2008 ozone NAA, see 40 CFR 81.305.

Our proposed rule provided background information on the 2008 ozone standards,1 the EPA's classification of the Eastern San Luis Obispo NAA under the Clean Air Act (CAA) as “Marginal” for the 2008 ozone standard, and the EPA's prior approval of an extension of the applicable attainment date for the area from July 20, 2015 to July 20, 2016 (81 FR 26697, May 4, 2016). In our proposed rule, we described our obligation under CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) to determine whether an ozone NAA attained the ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date within six months of that date; how we determine whether an area's air quality meets the 2008 ozone standard; and the relevant air quality monitoring agencies in the Eastern San Luis Obispo ozone NAA, their monitoring network plans, and the relevant ozone monitoring sites. We also discussed our previous review of the networks and network plans, the annual certifications of ambient air monitoring data, and our determination of completeness for 2013-2015 data from the two ozone monitoring sites within the Eastern San Luis Obispo NAA.

Our proposed rule included a table of ozone “design values” at the two ozone monitoring sites in the Eastern San Luis Obispo NAA.2 See 81 FR 70382, at 70384. As explained in our proposed rule, the 2008 ozone standard is attained in an area when the design value is less than or equal to 0.075 parts per million (ppm), as determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix P, at each monitoring site within the area. See 40 CFR 50.15. Based on our review of the monitoring data, which showed a design value for the area of 0.073 ppm (based on data collected at the Red Hills site) for 2013-2015, and taking into account the extent and reliability of the applicable ozone monitoring network, we proposed to determine that the Eastern San Luis Obispo NAA has attained the 2008 ozone standard by the applicable attainment date of July 20, 2016 based on complete, certified and quality-assured data for the 2013-2015 period. Lastly, we noted that if we finalize our proposed determination, then the Marginal Eastern San Luis Obispo NAA would not be subject to reclassification to “Moderate” for the 2008 ozone standard, that a determination of attainment by the applicable attainment date would not constitute a redesignation, and that the designation status of the Eastern San Luis Obispo area would remain nonattainment for the 2008 ozone standard until such time as the EPA determines that the area meets the CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment. Please see our proposed rule for more information concerning these topics.

The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received no comments.

Under CAA section 181(b)(2)(A), and based on the rationale presented in our proposed rule and summarized above, the EPA is finalizing our determination that the Eastern San Luis Obispo ozone NAA has attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of July 20, 2016. The EPA is making this determination based on complete, quality-assured and certified ambient air quality monitoring data for the 2013-2015 monitoring period. As a result of this determination, the Eastern San Luis Obispo 2008 ozone NAA will not be reclassified to a higher classification for the 2008 ozone standard.

This action is a determination based on air quality data and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);

• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and

• does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 21, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

I. Background

Under the Regional Haze Rule,1 each state was required to submit its first implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility impairment to EPA no later than December 17, 2007. See 40 CFR 51.308(b). Tennessee submitted its regional haze plan on April 4, 2008, and like many other states subject to the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), relied on CAIR to satisfy best available retrofit technology (BART) requirements for emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides from electric generating units in the State.

On April 24, 2012, EPA finalized a limited approval of Tennessee's April 4, 2008, regional haze plan as meeting some of the applicable regional haze requirements as set forth in sections 169A and 169B of the CAA and in 40 CFR 51.300-51.308.2 Also in this April 24, 2012, action, EPA finalized a limited disapproval of Tennessee's regional haze plan because of deficiencies arising from the State's reliance on CAIR to satisfy certain regional haze requirements. See 77 FR 24392. On June 7, 2012, EPA promulgated Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) to replace reliance on CAIR with reliance on the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to address deficiencies in CAIR-dependent regional haze plans of several states, including Tennessee's regional haze plan.3 See 77 FR 33642.

Each state is also required to submit a progress report in the form of a SIP revision every five years that evaluates progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory Class I Federal area within the state and for each mandatory Class I Federal area outside the state which may be affected by emissions from within the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(g). Each state is also required to submit, at the same time as the progress report, a determination of the adequacy of its existing regional haze plan. See 40 CFR 51.308(h). The first progress report was due five years after submittal of the initial regional haze plan.

On April 19, 2013, as required by 40 CFR 51.308(g), TDEC submitted to EPA, in the form of a revision to Tennessee's SIP, a report on progress made towards the RPGs for Class I areas in the State and for Class I areas outside the State that are affected by emissions from sources within the State. This submission also includes a negative declaration pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1) that the State's regional haze plan is sufficient in meeting the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule.

In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on September 28, 2016 (81 FR 66596), EPA proposed to approve Tennessee's Progress Report on the basis that it satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 51.308(h). No comments were received on the September 28, 2016, proposed rulemaking. The details of Tennessee's submittal and the rationale for EPA's action is further explained in the NPRM. See 81 FR 66596 (September 28, 2016).

EPA is finalizing approval of Tennessee's Regional Haze Progress Report SIP revision, submitted by the State on April 19, 2013, as meeting the applicable regional haze requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 51.308(h).

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);

• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 21, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

Throughout this document, whenever “we,” “us” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.

The Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”) requires the EPA to establish national primary and secondary standards for certain widespread pollutants, such as ozone, that cause or contribute to air pollution that is reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.1 In the 1970s, the EPA promulgated primary and secondary ozone standards, based on a 1-hour average. In 1997, we replaced the 1-hour ozone standards with primary and secondary 8-hour ozone standards. In 2008, we tightened the 8-hour ozone standards to the level of 0.075 parts per million (ppm), daily maximum 8-hour average.2 See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008); 40 CFR 50.15. Since the primary and secondary ozone standards are the same, we refer to them hereafter in this document using the singular “2008 ozone standard” (or simply “standard”) or NAAQS. The 2008 ozone standard is met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.075 ppm, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, Appendix P.

The EPA designated NAAs for the 2008 ozone standard on May 21, 2012, effective July 20, 2012 (77 FR 30088). In that action, the EPA classified (by operation of law) the Mariposa County, California 3 NAA as a “Marginal” nonattainment area. The original attainment date for the 2008 ozone standard for this Marginal ozone nonattainment area was as expeditious as practicable but not later than July 20, 2015. See 40 CFR 51.1103.

In May 2016, the EPA determined that the Mariposa County NAA failed to attain the 2008 ozone standard by the applicable attainment date of July 20, 2015, and reclassified the area to the next higher classification, i.e., “Moderate.” Our determination was based on complete, quality-assured and certified data for 2012-2014.4 States with Moderate ozone NAAs are required to submit revisions to the applicable SIP that comply with the requirements set forth in subpart 2 of part D of title I of the CAA and in the EPA's ozone implementation rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 40 CFR part 51, subpart AA. The relevant SIP requirements include, among other requirements, attainment demonstrations and associated reasonably available control measures (RACM), reasonable further progress (RFP) plans, and contingency measures for failure to attain or make RFP. The applicable attainment date for areas classified as Moderate nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS is as expeditious as practicable but not later than July 20, 2018. See 40 CFR 51.1103.

Under the provisions of EPA's ozone implementation rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, if the EPA issues a determination that an area is attaining the relevant standard, also known as a Clean Data Determination, the requirements for such area to submit attainment demonstrations and associated RACM, RFP plans, contingency measures and other planning SIPs related to attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS are suspended until such time as the area is redesignated to attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. However, if the EPA later determines, through notice-and-comment rulemaking, that the area has again violated the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the area is again required to submit such plans. See 40 CFR 51.1118. While these requirements are suspended, the EPA is not precluded from acting upon these SIP elements at any time if submitted to the EPA for review and approval.

A determination of whether an area's air quality meets the 2008 ozone NAAQS is generally based upon three consecutive calendar years of complete, quality-assured data measured at established State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) in the NAA and entered into the EPA Air Quality System (AQS) database. Data from ambient air monitoring sites operated by state or local agencies in compliance with EPA monitoring requirements must be submitted to AQS. Heads of monitoring agencies annually certify that these data are accurate to the best of their knowledge. Accordingly, the EPA relies primarily on data in AQS when determining the attainment status of an area. See 40 CFR 50.15; 40 CFR part 50, Appendix P; 40 CFR part 53; 40 CFR part 58, Appendices A, C, D and E. All data are reviewed to determine the area's air quality status in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, Appendix P.

The 2008 ozone standard is met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the design value is less than or equal to 0.075 ppm, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, Appendix P. See 40 CFR 50.15. The design value is a statistic that describes the air quality status of a given location relative to the level of the NAAQS. For the purpose of comparison with the 2008 ozone standard, the design value for a site is the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations. When the design value is less than or equal to 0.075 ppm (based on the rounding convention in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix P) at each monitoring site within the area, then the area is meeting the NAAQS. The data completeness requirement is met when the 3-year average percent of days with valid monitoring data is at least 90 percent, and no single year has less than 75 percent data completeness as determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, Appendix P.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) and local air pollution control districts and air quality management districts (“districts”) operate ambient air monitoring stations throughout the State of California. CARB is the lead monitoring agency in the Primary Quality Assurance Organization (PQAO) that includes all the monitoring agencies in the State with a few exceptions.5 6

Within the Mariposa County ozone nonattainment area, there is one ozone SLAMS (referred to as the Jerseydale site) that is operated by CARB, and one SLAMS (referred to as the Turtleback Dome site in Yosemite National Park) that is operated by the National Park Service (NPS). The ozone monitoring site operated by NPS at Turtleback Dome is one of many sites throughout the U.S. and Canada that comprise the Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET).7 Ozone monitors at CASTNET sites meet the EPA's ambient air quality monitoring requirements of 40 CFR part 58, and data from such sites are submitted to AQS. Ozone data from CASTNET sites, such as Turtleback Dome, are eligible for use in determining compliance with the ozone NAAQS. CARB is the PQAO for the Jerseydale site. The NPS is the PQAO for the Turtleback Dome site.

All state and local air monitoring agencies are required to submit annual monitoring network plans to the EPA.8 An annual monitoring network plan discusses the status of the air monitoring network, as required under 40 CFR part 58.10. CARB submits the annual monitoring network plans for the Jerseydale site.

Since 2007, the EPA has regularly reviewed these annual monitoring network plans for compliance with the applicable reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 58. With respect to ozone, the EPA found that the area's annual monitoring network plans meet the applicable requirements under 40 CFR part 58. See EPA letters to CARB approving annual monitoring network plans for the years 2013, 2014 and 2015.9 The 2016 CASTNET annual network plan, dated June 23, 2016, includes the Turtleback Dome site.10

The EPA also concluded from its Technical System Audit of the CARB PQAO (conducted during Summer 2015), that the combined ambient air monitoring network operated by CARB currently meets or exceeds the requirements for the minimum number of SLAMS for the 2008 ozone standard.11 All of the monitoring sites in the PQAO are reviewed with respect to monitoring objectives, spatial scales and other site criteria as required by 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D.

CARB oversees the quality assurance of all data collected within the CARB PQAO. Also, CARB annually certifies that the data it submits to AQS are complete and quality-assured. This includes data from all CARB sites, including the Jerseydale site.12 Data from the Turtleback Dome site are certified by the NPS.13

As noted above, there are two ozone SLAMS monitoring sites operating within the Mariposa County NAA. These sites monitor ozone concentrations on a continuous basis using EPA reference or equivalent methods.14 15

Lastly, consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 50, the EPA has reviewed the quality-assured and certified ozone ambient air monitoring data, as recorded in AQS for the applicable monitoring period, collected at the monitoring sites in the Mariposa County NAA for completeness. The EPA has determined that the data are complete.16 For the two ozone monitoring sites in Mariposa County, daily maximum 8-hour average concentrations are available for at least 90 percent of the days within the ozone monitoring season, on average for the 2013-2015 period, and daily maximum 8-hour average concentrations are available for at least 75 percent of the days within the ozone monitoring season for each individual year within that period.

As noted above, the applicable attainment date for the Mariposa County ozone NAA is July 20, 2018; however, we have reviewed the data collected at the two monitoring sites within that area during the most recent three-year period (2013-2015) to determine whether the area has already attained the 2008 ozone standard. Table 1 shows the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentrations for 2013 through 2015 at both sites in the Mariposa County ozone NAA and shows the design values for 2013-2015. The design value for a given area is based on the monitoring site in the area with the highest design value. In this case, the design value for 2013-2015 for the Mariposa County ozone NAA is at the Jerseydale site and is 0.075 ppm, which is equal to the standard (i.e., 0.075 ppm). Therefore, we are determining, based on the complete, quality-assured and certified data for 2013-2015, that the Mariposa County Moderate ozone NAA has attained the 2008 ozone standard. We have also reviewed preliminary data for 2016 and find that they are consistent with continued attainment of the standard in the Mariposa County NAA.17

With this determination that the Mariposa County ozone NAA has attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the obligation on the State of California to submit SIP revisions related to attainment of the 2008 ozone standard in Mariposa County, including but not limited to SIP revisions demonstrating attainment and RFP, is suspended until such time as Mariposa County is redesignated to attainment for the 2008 ozone standard, at which time the requirements no longer apply. However, if the EPA determines, through notice-and-comment rulemaking, that Mariposa County has once again violated the 2008 ozone NAAQS, then the area is again required to submit the attainment-related SIP revisions. See 40 CFR 51.1118.

This final determination of attainment for the Mariposa County NAA does not constitute a redesignation to attainment. Under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E), redesignations to attainment require states to meet a number of additional statutory criteria, including EPA's approval of a SIP revision demonstrating maintenance of the standard for 10 years after redesignation. The designation status of the Mariposa County area will remain Moderate nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS until such time as the EPA determines that the area meets the CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment.

The EPA is taking direct final action to determine that the Mariposa County Moderate ozone NAA has attained the 2008 ozone standard based on complete, quality-assured and certified ambient air quality monitoring data for the 2013-2015 monitoring period. Preliminary data for 2016 are consistent with continued attainment of the standard in the Mariposa County NAA. Upon the effective date of this determination, the requirements for the Mariposa County NAA to submit planning SIPs related to attainment of the standard are suspended until the area is redesignated or the EPA determines that the area has violated the standard, at which time the area would again be required to submit such plans.

We do not think anyone will object to this determination, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are simultaneously proposing to make the same determination made herein. If we receive adverse comments by January 20, 2017, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct final action will not take effect and we will address the comments in a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive timely adverse comments, the direct final action will be effective without further notice on February 21, 2017.

This action makes a determination based on air quality data and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, the action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• is not subject to the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP obligations discussed herein do not apply to Indian tribes, and thus this action will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 21, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed Rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that the EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. The term “the Commonwealth” refers to the state of Massachusetts.

Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.

On July 20, 2016 (81 FR 47133), EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Massachusetts which proposed approval of most elements of SIP submissions from the Commonwealth regarding the infrastructure requirements of the CAA for the 1997 ozone, 2008 lead, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS, proposed to conditionally approve three aspects of the Commonwealth's submittals, and proposed findings of failure to submit pertaining to various aspects of the PSD requirements of infrastructure SIPs. Additionally, we proposed to remove 40 CFR 52.1160 as legally obsolete. The Commonwealth submitted its infrastructure State Implementation Plan (ISIP) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS on December 14, 2007, its ISIP for the 2008 Pb NAAQS on December 4, 2012, and its ISIPs for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS on June 6, 2014.

Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, states are required to submit infrastructure SIPs to ensure that their SIPs provide for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS, including the 1997 ozone, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. These submissions must contain any revisions needed for meeting the applicable SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2), or certifications that their existing SIPs for the NAAQS already meet those requirements. Table 1 below provides a summary of the actions we are taking on the various portions of the Commonwealth's infrastructure submittals.

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.

This rule takes action on the June 16, 2016, submission from Ohio EPA requesting redesignation of the Columbus area to attainment for the 2008 ozone standard. The background for today's action is discussed in detail in EPA's proposal, dated September 28, 2016 (81 FR 66578). In that rulemaking, we noted that, under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 2008 ozone NAAQS is attained in an area when the 3-year average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentration is equal to or less than 0.075 ppm, when truncated after the thousandth decimal place, at all of the ozone monitoring sites in the area. (See 40 CFR 50.15 and appendix P to 40 CFR part 50.) Under the CAA, EPA may redesignate nonattainment areas to attainment if sufficient complete, quality-assured data are available to determine that the area has attained the standard and if it meets the other CAA redesignation requirements in section 107(d)(3)(E). The proposed rule, dated September 28, 2016, provides a detailed discussion of how Ohio has met these CAA requirements.

As discussed in the proposed rule, quality-assured and certified monitoring data for 2013-2015 and preliminary data for 2016 show that the Columbus area has attained and continues to attain the 2008 ozone standard. In the maintenance plan submitted for the area, Ohio has demonstrated that the ozone standard will be maintained in the area through 2030. Finally, Ohio has adopted 2020 and 2030 VOC and NOX MVEBs for the Columbus area that are supported by Ohio's maintenance demonstration.

EPA provided a 30-day review and comment period for the September 28, 2016, proposed rule. The comment period ended on October 28, 2016. During the comment period, comments in support of the action were submitted on behalf of the Ohio Utility Group and its member companies. We received no adverse comments on the proposed rule.

EPA is determining that the Columbus nonattainment area is attaining the 2008 ozone standard, based on quality-assured and certified monitoring data for 2013-2015 and that the Ohio portion of this area has met the requirements for redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is thus changing the legal designation of the Columbus area from nonattainment to attainment for the 2008 ozone standard. EPA is also approving, as a revision to the Ohio SIP, the state's maintenance plan for the area. The maintenance plan is designed to keep the Columbus area in attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS through 2030. Finally, EPA finds adequate and is approving the newly-established 2020 and 2030 MVEBs for the Columbus area.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), EPA finds there is good cause for these actions to become effective immediately upon publication. This is because a delayed effective date is unnecessary due to the nature of a redesignation to attainment, which relieves the area from certain CAA requirements that would otherwise apply to it. The immediate effective date for this action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that rulemaking actions may become effective less than 30 days after publication if the rule “grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction,” and section 553(d)(3), which allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in section 553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. Today's rule, however, does not create any new regulatory requirements such that affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule takes effect. Rather, today's rule relieves the state of planning requirements for this ozone nonattainment area. For these reasons, EPA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for these actions to become effective on the date of publication of these actions.

Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);

• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on tribes, impact any existing sources of air pollution on tribal lands, nor impair the maintenance of ozone national ambient air quality standards in tribal lands.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 21, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

Parts 52 and 81, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

I. General Information A. What is the agency's authority for taking this action?

The authority for this action is TSCA section 6, as amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (15 U.S.C. 2605).

Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A), provides that “rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice” are exempt from notice and comment requirements. This action involves revisions to the rules that set out the general rulemaking procedure for EPA under the prior version of TSCA, and the action does not affect the substance of any determinations EPA will make under the amended TSCA section 6. Accordingly, these revisions fall under the exemption provided in APA section 553(b)(3)(A), and the EPA is not taking comment on this action.

This action affects only Agency procedure in future rulemakings under TSCA section 6 and has no particular applicability to the public. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

This action removes 40 CFR part 750, subpart A (the general procedural requirements for rulemaking under TSCA section 6, including the requirement for a hearing). Subpart A detailed hearing-related procedures as well as the content and timing of EPA's notices and the Agency's record. This action also removes the similar provisions from the procedural rules in subparts B and C for exemptions from the prohibitions in TSCA section 6(e) applicable to polychlorinated biphenyls.

TSCA, enacted in 1976, was intended to provide EPA with the tools necessary to develop information and manage risks associated with chemicals in commerce. TSCA section 6(a) requires EPA to take action to address unreasonable risks that EPA determines are presented by chemical substances or mixtures. Under TSCA section 6 as enacted in 1976, if EPA had a reasonable basis to conclude that the manufacture (including import), processing, distribution in commerce, use, or disposal of a chemical substance or mixture presented an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, EPA would have to by rule apply requirements to the substance or mixture to the extent necessary to address the unreasonable risk using the least burdensome requirement. These requirements could include prohibitions or limitations on manufacturing processing, distribution in commerce, commercial use, or disposal; marking (labeling) requirements; and recordkeeping requirements. This section of TSCA also established certain procedures that EPA would have to follow in promulgating such rules. As enacted in 1976, TSCA section 6(c) required, among other things, that EPA provide the opportunity for an informal hearing and that EPA make certain findings and publish certain statements.

EPA published final procedural regulations to implement the TSCA section 6 procedural requirements shortly thereafter in the Federal Register of December 2, 1977, (42 FR 61259). These procedural regulations, codified as 40 CFR part 750, are quite detailed with respect to the contents of Notices of Proposed Rulemaking, hearing procedures, the handling of public comments, and docketing of comments and other supporting materials. These procedural requirements for rulemaking under TSCA section 6 have been amended several times, most notably in 1978 to add interim procedural rules for filing and processing petitions for exemptions from the TSCA section 6(e) ban on the manufacture of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (43 FR 50905, November 1, 1978), and in 1979 to add similar rules for petitions for exemptions from the TSCA section 6(e) bans on PCB processing and distribution in commerce (44 FR 31558, May 31, 1979).

On June 22, 2016, the President signed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act into law. This legislation amends many sections of TSCA, including TSCA section 6. While the new law still directs EPA to take action against unreasonable risks presented by chemical substances or mixtures, EPA's duties under TSCA section 6 have been significantly modified to include specific deadlines and procedures for prioritizing chemicals for risk evaluations, conducting the risk evaluations and promulgating regulations to address unreasonable risks that are identified. Notably, once unreasonable risks have been identified through a risk evaluation, TSCA section 6(c)(1) now requires EPA to issue a proposed rule to address the risks no later than one year after the final risk evaluation is published, and the final rule must be issued no later than two years after the final risk evaluation is published, subject to the limited extension authorized by TSCA section 6(c)(1)(C).

After reviewing 40 CFR part 750 in light of the amendments to TSCA, EPA has determined that the procedural regulations in subpart A do not facilitate the efficient administrative process envisioned by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. Subpart A was principally promulgated to provide further details related to the informal hearing process under TSCA as originally enacted. However, with the statutory amendments' removal of the informal hearing requirement and addition of ambitious deadlines for action under section 6, subpart A is particularly outdated and no longer designed for effective implementation of section 6. To the extent subpart A simply reflected administrative requirements of TSCA and the Administrative Procedure Act, the current version of TSCA and the Administrative Procedure Act will continue to apply on their own terms, and section 6 of TSCA as amended prescribes considerably more procedure than the previous version of TSCA. To the extent subpart A goes beyond the current statutory requirements of such law, EPA believes that the layering of additional procedural requirements by regulation is both unnecessary to ensure a transparent rulemaking process with robust public participation and not well-suited to the rapid throughput required by the law. EPA also believes the requirements are in some respects outdated with respect to current technology. The remainder of this notice elaborates on these points.

First, regarding the hearing-related provisions of 40 CFR part 750, TSCA section 6, as amended, no longer requires EPA to provide an opportunity for an informal hearing on a proposed rule. After TSCA was amended on June 22, 2016 and before this final rule, 40 CFR part 750 inaccurately referred to “the informal hearing required by section 6(c)(2)(C) of TSCA” when, in fact, TSCA section 6 no longer requires EPA to provide an opportunity for informal hearing and TSCA section 6(c)(2)(C) in particular now refers to another topic. Given that EPA is no longer required to provide an opportunity for an informal hearing on a proposed rule under TSCA section 6, and that the statutory citations in the hearing-related regulations are no longer correct, much of 40 CFR part 750 is no longer needed or appropriate.

Moreover, by establishing a two-year deadline for final rules after unreasonable risks are identified through risk evaluation, Congress expressed an intention for EPA to move relatively quickly to address unreasonable risks. Although Congress also established a limited process by which EPA could extend this deadline, EPA does not believe that Congress intended for extended deadlines to be a routine occurrence. The cumbersome nature of the informal hearing-related provisions established in 40 CFR part 750 would make it difficult for EPA to meet the newly-established rulemaking deadlines.

Yet EPA does not interpret the removal of the hearing requirement as an indication that reduced public input is desired. To the contrary, the amended TSCA section 6 specifically requires public comment periods at several stages during the chemical prioritization, risk evaluation, and risk management processes. EPA interprets the removal of the informal hearing requirement as being motivated by Congressional intent to simplify and thereby quicken the pace of TSCA section 6 rulemaking, considering the establishment of new rulemaking deadlines and the manner in which the tools for managing EPA's administrative rulemaking process have evolved over the 40 years since TSCA was enacted (e.g., the advent of electronic commenting). Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), EPA must give interested persons an opportunity to participate in a legislative rulemaking by submitting written comments. In addition, for existing chemicals under TSCA, EPA often holds public meetings in order to solicit oral comments as well as written comments.

Next, while EPA must still consider and publish a statement on certain factors when promulgating a rule under TSCA section 6(a), the factors have changed. For example, TSCA section 6(c) as originally enacted required EPA to consider and publish a statement with respect to the availability of substitutes for various uses of a chemical substance or mixture. TSCA section 6(c) as amended requires EPA to, in deciding whether to prohibit or restrict a chemical substance or mixture in a manner that substantially prevents a specific condition of use, and in setting an appropriate transition period for such chemical substance or mixture, consider, to the extent practicable, whether technically and economically feasible alternatives that benefit health or the environment will be reasonably available as a substitute when the proposed prohibition or other restriction takes effect. Therefore, EPA is removing the outdated specification of the content and timing of EPA notices in 40 CFR part 750, subpart A, and instead EPA's notices in future section 6 rulemakings will conform to TSCA as amended.

As EPA noted in 1987 (52 FR 23054), the initiation of a section 6 proceeding could be by proposed rule, advance notice of proposed rulemaking, or notice of other appropriate action. The agency is not changing its position on this matter by removing 40 CFR 750.2(a). As the agency stated previously, “Federal courts have acknowledged that rulemaking commences before the publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking. See, for example, Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 595 F. Supp. 1255 (S.D.N.Y. 1984), where the court found that EPA may use an ANPR to initiate a rulemaking proceeding under section 4 of TSCA.” Therefore, the provision regarding when a proceeding begins does not need to be codified in the CFR.

Lastly, modern electronic tools and remote conferencing were not available when TSCA was enacted nor when procedural requirements under 40 CFR part 750 regarding Agency records were promulgated by EPA. EPA believes that it is now reasonable and prudent to use its information resources, including information technology, to establish an electronic record to contain rulemaking documents being considered and public comments submitted, a possibility not anticipated by the outdated record provisions. Consistent with TSCA section 2's expression of Congressional intent that EPA carry out TSCA in a reasonable and prudent manner, and in consideration of the environmental, economic, and social impacts that any action taken under TSCA may have, (15 U.S.C. 2601), electronic correspondence can reduce burden and costs for the regulated entities by eliminating the costs associated with printing and mailing documents, and traveling to hearings, while at the same time improving EPA's efficiency in reviewing public comments, making decisions, and disseminating information to the public.

Therefore, after considering the points discussed earlier in this notice, EPA is removing the general TSCA section 6 procedural requirements contained in subpart A of 40 CFR part 750. EPA is not making any changes to the procedures contained in subparts B and C of 40 CFR part 750 for petitions for exemptions from the prohibitions in TSCA section 6(e), other than to remove references to the informal hearing-related procedures as well as the content and timing of EPA's notices and the Agency's record corresponding to the removal of subpart A.

Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

This action does not contain any information collection activities that require approval under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. This rulemaking removes unnecessary internal EPA procedures and does not impose any requirements on the public.

This action is not subject to the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. The RFA applies only to rules subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other statute.

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.

This action does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). It will 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.

This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it merely removes procedural requirements that the Agency must follow when conducting rulemaking under TSCA section 6. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

This rulemaking does not involve any technical standards, and is therefore not subject to considerations under NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note.

This action does not establish an environmental health or safety standard, and is therefore not is not subject to environmental justice considerations under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), because it does not establish an environmental health or safety standard. This regulatory action is a procedural change and does not have any impact on human health or the environment.

This rule is exempt from the CRA (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) because it is a rule of agency organization, procedure or practice that does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties.

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

This document announces that, on December 15, 2016, OMB approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements relating to the enhancements to the transparency rule in paragraphs 164, 166, 167, 169, 173, 174, 179, 180, and 181 of the Commission's Open Internet Order, GN Docket No. 14-28, FCC 15-24, published at 80 FR 19737, April 13, 2015 applicable to fixed broadband Internet access service. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1158. This document also announces that, on December 15, 2016, OMB approved, for a period of two years, the information collection requirements relating to the enhancements to the transparency rule, except for disclosure of packet loss, in paragraphs 164, 166, 167, 169, 173, 174, 179, 180, and 181 of the Commission's Open Internet Order, GN Docket No. 14-28, FCC 15-24, published at 80 FR 19737, April 13, 2015 applicable to mobile broadband Internet access service. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1220. The Commission sought public comment on the associated burden estimates on May 20, 2015 (80 FR 29000) and on August 11, 2016 (81 FR 53145). The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the applicability date of the enhancements. 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 Numbers, 3060-1158 and 3060-1220, 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 December 15, 2016, for the information collection requirements relating to the enhancements to the transparency rule contained in paragraphs 164, 166, 167, 169, 173, 174, 179, 180, and 181 of the Commission's Open Internet Order applicable to fixed broadband Internet access service. The FCC also is notifying the public that it received final OMB approval on December 15, 2016, for the information collection requirements relating to the enhancements to the transparency rule, except for disclosure of packet loss, contained in paragraphs 164, 166, 167, 169, 173, 174, 179, 180, and 181 of the Commission's Open Internet Order applicable to mobile broadband Internet access service.

During OMB's review of the modified information collection, it determined that the mobile broadband disclosures were at a different stage than the fixed broadband disclosures and should therefore be approved for two years, with conditions, rather than the three year approval, without conditions, for fixed broadband. OMB therefore issued Control No. 3060-1220 for Transparency Rule Disclosures, Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order, GN Docket No. 14-28, FCC 15-24 (Mobile Broadband Disclosures) and Control No. 3060-1158 for Transparency Rule Disclosures, Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order, GN Docket No. 14-28, FCC 15-24 (Fixed Broadband Disclosures). Although there is a separate collection for mobile broadband disclosures, the FCC is reporting an identical burden estimate for the calculation and disclosure of broadband performance data by both fixed and mobile broadband providers, which was subject to public review and comment. Under 5 CFR 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 for fixed broadband Internet access service is 3060-1158. The OMB Control Number for mobile broadband Internet access service is 3060-1220.

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 Numbers: 3060-1158 (fixed broadband) and 3060-1220 (mobile broadband).

OMB Approval Date: December 15, 2016.

OMB Expiration Date: December 31, 2019 for fixed broadband Internet access service; December 31, 2018 for mobile broadband Internet access service.

Title: Transparency Rule Disclosures, Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order, GN Docket No. 14-28, FCC 15-24.

Form Number: N/A.

Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit entities; Not-for profit entities; State, local or tribal governments.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 3,188 respondents; 3,188 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 31.2 hours (average).

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement; Third party disclosure requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Mandatory. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained in sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 201, 202, 301, 303, 316, 332, 403, 501, 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, and 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 160, 201, 202, 301, 303, 316, 332, 403, 501, 503, and 1302.

Total Annual Burden: 99,466 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $640,000.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: An assurance of confidentiality is not offered because this information collection does not require the collection of personally identifiable information (PII) from individuals.

Privacy Act: No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: The Commission's transparency rule for providers of broadband Internet access service require all providers of broadband Internet access service to publicly disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of their broadband Internet access services sufficient for consumers to make informed choices regarding use of such services and for content, application, service, and device providers to develop, market, and maintain Internet offerings. The rules ensure transparency and continued Internet openness, while making clear that broadband providers can manage their networks effectively. The enhancements to the transparency rule adopted in the Open Internet Order will better enable end-user consumers to make informed choices about broadband services by providing them with timely information tailored more specifically to their needs, and will similarly provide edge providers with the information necessary to develop new content, applications, services, and devices that promote the virtuous cycle of investment and innovation. The Commission anticipates that small entities may have less of a burden, and larger entities may have more of a burden than the average compliance burden. This is because larger entities serve more customers, are more likely to serve multiple geographic regions, and are not eligible to avail themselves of the temporary exemption from the enhancements granted to smaller providers.

Background

In accordance with the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970 (35 FR 15627; October 6, 1970), NMFS has jurisdiction over the marine taxa identified in this rule. Under section 4(a)(2) of the Act, NMFS must decide whether a species under its jurisdiction should be classified as an endangered or threatened species. NMFS makes these determinations via its rulemaking process. We, the Service, are then responsible for publishing final rules to amend the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17.11(h) and 17.12(h), respectively.

Under section 4(a)(2)(A) of the Act, if NMFS determines that a species should be listed as endangered or threatened, or that a species' status should be changed from threatened to endangered, then NMFS is required to inform the Service of the status change. The Service is then responsible for implementing the status change by publishing a final rule to amend the appropriate List at 50 CFR 17.11(h) or 17.12(h). Under section 4(a)(2)(B) of the Act, if NMFS determines that a species should be removed from the List (delisted), or that a species' status should be changed from an endangered to a threatened species, then NMFS is required to recommend the status change to the Service. If the Service concurs with the recommended status change, then the Service will implement the status change by publishing a final rule to amend the appropriate List.

On April 21, 2015, NMFS published a proposed rule (80 FR 22304) to remove the species-level listing of the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) from 50 CFR part 224 and in its place list the Cape Verde Islands/Northwest Africa and Arabian Sea DPSs as endangered (at 50 CFR part 224) and the Western North Pacific and Central America DPSs as threatened (at 50 CFR part 223). NMFS solicited public comments on the proposed rule for 90 days, ending July 20, 2015. On September 8, 2016, NMFS published a final rule (81 FR 62260) to list the Cape Verde Islands/Northwest Africa, Western North Pacific, Central America, and Arabian Sea DPSs as endangered and the Mexico DPS as threatened. As of the effective date of NMFS' rule (October 11, 2016), the humpback whales that make up the remaining nine DPSs identified in the rule are no longer listed under the Act.

The removal of the species-level listing and the listing of the five humpback whale DPSs were applicable as of October 11, 2016. In the September 8, 2016, final rule (81 FR 62260), NMFS addressed all public comments received in response to the proposed rule. NMFS reconsidered its proposals with regard to the Western North Pacific, Mexico, and Central America DPSs, listing the Western North Pacific and Central America DPSs as endangered instead of threatened as proposed and listing the Mexico DPS as threatened instead of not listing it.

For the Western North Pacific DPS, NMFS considered the relatively low, slightly revised abundance estimate (1,059 instead of 1,100); the moderate reduction of its population size or growth rate likely from energy development, competition with fisheries, whaling, and vessel collisions; the serious reduction of its population size or growth rate likely from fishing gear entanglements; and the considerable uncertainty reflected in the distribution of Biological Review Team (BRT) votes in assigning extinction risk categories.

For the Mexico DPS, NMFS considered the revised abundance estimate that is significantly lower than previously thought (3,264 instead of 6,000-7,000) and the presence of the known fishing gear entanglement threat of moderate intensity.

For the Central America DPS, NMFS considered the original low abundance estimate of 500-600 (which was at the dividing line between BRT risk categories) and the more recently updated estimate of 411 (which is below the BRT's threshold of 500 between “high risk of extinction” and “moderate risk of extinction”), the fact that the moderate threats of vessel collisions and fishing gear entanglement continue to act upon a population that is so small, and the considerable uncertainty reflected in the distribution of BRT votes for different extinction risk categories.

As discussed under the Status Review section of NMFS' final rule (see 81 FR 62261-62262; September 8, 2016), the BRT considered abundance and trend information carefully in evaluating extinction risk, but abundance was not the sole criterion for evaluating extinction risk. The thresholds described by the BRT were only general guidelines, and NMFS was required to consider them in light of the considerations just outlined. Under these circumstances, for these particular DPSs, the extinction risk is compounded by the lack of information on the population abundance trends. NMFS concluded that the Western North Pacific and Central America DPSs are in danger of extinction throughout their ranges and the Mexico DPS is likely to become endangered throughout its range within the foreseeable future.

Because humpback whales that make up some of the identified DPSs of humpback whale will no longer be protected under the Act and whales in one DPS are considered threatened rather than endangered, both section 4(a)(2)(A) and section 4(a)(2)(B) of the Act apply to our responsibility to implement the status changes by publishing a final rule to amend the List at 50 CFR 17.11(h).

In a September 6, 2016, memorandum (Memorandum from Gary Frazer to Donna Wieting, September 6, 2016), per section 4(a)(2)(B), we concur with NMFS's recommendation that humpback whales in nine DPSs are no longer endangered or threatened species and that whales in the Mexico DPS are now a threatened species rather than an endangered species. By publishing this final rule, we are taking the necessary administrative step to codify these changes in the List at 50 CFR 17.11(h).

Because NMFS provided a public comment period on the proposed rule for the humpback whale, and we concur with NMFS' actions, we find good cause that the notice and public comment procedures of 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary for this action. We also find good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this rule effective immediately. The NMFS rule (81 FR 62260; September 8, 2016) revised the listing status of the humpback whale, extending protection under the Act to five DPSs and listing them at 50 CFR parts 223 and 224; this rule is an administrative action to add those DPSs to the List at 50 CFR 17.11(h). The public would not be served by delaying the effective date of this rulemaking action.

We have determined that an environmental assessment, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be prepared in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We outlined our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below: