Federal Register Vol. 81, No.59,

On February 4, 2016, the FAA published a final rule in the Federal Register amending the Class E surface area and Class E extension airspace areas at Minot International Airport, Minot, ND (81 FR 5903) Docket No. FAA-2015-7485. A final rule correction was published in the Federal Register to include Class D and Class E airspace extending upward from the surface (81 FR 11103, March 3, 2016). Subsequent to publication, the FAA determined the part-time NOTAM language in the Class E surface area description was inadvertently removed in error, and the Class E extension airspace boundary information that is contained in the Class E surface area description should be removed. Potential safety concerns were identified due to the possibility for confusion in determining the operating rules and equipment requirements in the Minot International Airport terminal area. The concerns were based on the opportunity for part-time Class D surface area airspace and continuous Class E surface area airspace to be active at the same time, as well as having the same Class E extension airspace boundary information published in both the Class E surface area and the Class E extension airspace descriptions.

To resolve these concerns, the FAA is keeping the part-time NOTAM language in the Class E surface area description to retain it as part-time airspace supplementing the existing part-time Class D surface area airspace at Minot International Airport, and removing the Class E extension airspace boundary information from the Class E surface area description. The regulatory text is rewritten for clarity. These are administrative corrections and do not affect the controlled airspace boundaries or operating requirements supporting operations in the Minot International Airport terminal area.

The CPSIA was enacted on August 14, 2008. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA, part of the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, requires the Commission to: (1) Examine and assess the effectiveness of voluntary consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler products, in consultation with representatives of consumer groups, juvenile product manufacturers, and independent child product engineers and experts; and (2) promulgate consumer product safety standards for durable infant and toddler products. Standards issued under section 104 are to be “substantially the same as” the applicable voluntary standards or more stringent than the voluntary standard if the Commission concludes that more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of injury associated with the product.

The term “durable infant or toddler product” is defined in section 104(f)(1) of the CPSIA as “a durable product intended for use, or that may be reasonably expected to be used, by children under the age of 5 years.” Section 104(f)(2)(C) of the CPSIA specifically identifies “hook-on chairs” as a durable infant or toddler product.

On July 2, 2015, the Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPR”) for hook-on chairs. 80 FR 38041. The NPR proposed to incorporate by reference the voluntary standard, ASTM F1235-15, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Portable Hook-On Chairs, without modification. In this document, the Commission is issuing a mandatory safety standard for hook-on chairs. As required by section 104(b)(1)(A), the Commission consulted with manufacturers, retailers, trade organizations, laboratories, consumer advocacy groups, consultants, and the public to develop this proposed standard, largely through the ASTM process. The rule incorporates by reference the most recent voluntary standard, developed by ASTM International, ASTM F1235-15.

In addition, the final rule amends the list of NORs issued by the Commission in 16 CFR part 1112 to include the standard for hook-on chairs. Under section 14 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (“CPSA”), the Commission promulgated 16 CFR part 1112 to establish requirements for accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies (or testing laboratories) to test for conformity with a children's product safety rule. Amending part 1112 adds a NOR for the hook-on chair standard to the list of children's product safety rules.

The scope section of ASTM F1235-15 defines a “portable hook-on chair” as “[u]sually a legless seat constructed to locate the occupant at a table in such a position and elevation so that the surface of the table can be used as the feeding surface for the occupant . . . [s]upported solely by the table on which it is mounted.” The ASTM standard specifies the appropriate ages and weights for children using portable hook-on chairs as “between the ages of six months and three years and who weigh no more than 37 lb (16.8 kg) (95th percentile male at three years).” Typical hook-on chairs consist of fabric over a lightweight frame, with a device to mount the seat to a support surface, such as a table or counter. Some hook-on chairs fold for easy storage or transport, and some include a removable tray that can be used in conjunction with a table.

CPSC staff has identified 10 firms supplying hook-on chairs to the U.S. market, typically priced at $40 to $80 each. These 10 firms specialize in the manufacture and/or distribution of durable nursery products and represent only a small segment of the juvenile products industry. Nine of the 10 known firms are domestic (including 3 manufacturers and 6 importers). The remaining firm is a foreign manufacturer. Hook-on chairs represent only a small proportion of each firm's overall product line; on average, each firm supplies one hook-on chair model to the U.S. market annually.

Staff expects that the hook-on chairs of nine of the 10 firms are compliant with ASTM F1235 because they are either: (1) Certified by the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (“JPMA”) (three firms); or (2) the supplier claims compliance with the voluntary standard (six firms). It is unknown whether the hook-on chairs supplied by the remaining firm, a foreign manufacturer, comply with the ASTM voluntary standard.

The preamble to the NPR summarized the hook-on chair incident data—covering the period between January 1, 2000 and October 31, 2014—reported to the Commission. 80 FR 38041. In the NPR, CPSC's Directorate for Epidemiology, Division of Hazard Analysis, identified 89 portable hook-on chair-related incidents reported to the CPSC that occurred during the covered time period, including 50 incidents involving injury, 38 non-injury incidents, and one fatality. Since the publication of the NPR, CPSC staff has received 11 new reports (seven nonfatal injuries and four incidents without injury) that were determined to involve portable hook-on chairs. The seven new injuries all involved children between the ages of 6 and 12 months. Among the 11 new incidents, no ages were reported outside the ASTM-recommended user range of 6 months to 3 years. The hazards identified in the new incidents are consistent with the hazard patterns identified among the incidents present in the NPR briefing package.

The voluntary standard for hook-on chairs was first approved and published in 1989, as ASTM F1235-89, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Portable Hook-On Chairs. ASTM has revised the voluntary standard seven times since initial publication of the standard. The current version, ASTM F1235-15, was approved on May 1, 2015. In the NPR, the Commission proposed to incorporate ASTM F1235-15, which addresses the hazard patterns identified for hook-on chairs, without modification.

The Commission received two comments in response to the NPR. A summary of each comment and a response is provided below.

Comment: A comment from representatives of Kids In Danger, Consumer Federation of America, and Consumers Union urged the Commission to adopt the proposed rule and agreed with staff's recommendations.

Response: The Commission is issuing a final rule that is identical to the NPR.

Comment: The second commenter discussed infant fall data, head injuries, severed body parts, and installation considerations for hook-on chairs. In addition, the commenter questioned why “so many injuries, and even on[e] fatality” occurred before anyone took action to implement stringent standards. Additionally, the commenter opined that hook-on chairs never should have been released to the market, or that they should have been removed immediately after compromised attachment incidents surfaced. Lastly, the commenter opined that even if injuries and fatalities decrease after implementing this new rule, the chances are high that more infants will be killed.

Response: Section 104 of the CPSIA requires the Commission to promulgate consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler products, including hook-on chairs (specifically identified by section 104(f)(2)(C) of the CPSIA). Furthermore, section 104 of the CPSIA lays out a broad timeline for promulgation of such durable infant and toddler product safety standards. These standards must be “substantially the same as” or more stringent than the relevant voluntary standard. Accordingly, through section 104 of the CPSIA, Congress has directed the Commission to promulgate safety standards relating to hook-on chairs rather than ban their use.

The current ASTM standard, ASTM F1235-15, incorporates numerous changes implemented after hazard patterns emerged under the previous version of the standard, ASTM F1235-08. For example, the one fatal incident involved an older hook-on chair that did not have a passive crotch restraint. Passive crotch restraints are used to prevent “submarining” deaths and are specified in other similar juvenile standards, such as the juvenile standard for high chairs. Had the hook-on chair involved in the fatal incident contained a passive crotch restraint, the death would not have occurred. In 2014, ASTM added a performance requirement for passive-crotch restraints to ASTM F1235. During the ensuing 7 years between adoption of ASTM F1235-08 and ASTM F1235-15, the hazard patterns identified in the NPR were all addressed, and corresponding requirements were incorporated into the 2015 version of the standard. The Commission is confident that these changes in the standard (including changes addressing scissoring/shearing, openings, and labeling/markings) will reduce injuries associated with hook-on chairs.

Section 1233.2(a) of the final rule provides that hook-on chairs must comply with ASTM F1235-15.

The Office of the Federal Register (“OFR”) has regulations concerning incorporation by reference. 1 CFR part 51. These regulations require that, for a final rule, agencies must discuss in the preamble of the rule the way that the materials the agency incorporates by reference are reasonably available to interested persons and how interested parties can obtain the materials. In addition, the preamble of the rule must summarize the material. 1 CFR 51.5(b).

In accordance with the OFR's requirements, the discussion in this section summarizes the provisions of ASTM F1235-15. Interested persons may purchase a copy of ASTM F1235-15 from ASTM, either through ASTM's Web site or by mail at the address provided in the rule. A copy of the standard may also be inspected at the CPSC's Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, or at NARA, as discussed above. We note that the Commission and ASTM arranged for commenters to have “read only” access to ASTM F1235-15 during the NPR's comment period.

ASTM F1235-15 contains requirements covering:

• Sharp points;

• Small parts;

• Lead in paint;

• Wood parts;

• Latching and locking mechanisms;

• Scissoring, shearing, and pinching (including during detachment from table support surface);

• Exposed coil springs;

• Openings;

• Labeling; and

• Protective components.

The standard additionally contains test methods that must be used to assess conformity with these requirements.

The final rule amends part 1112 to add a new § 1112.15(b)(40) that lists 16 CFR part 1233, Safety Consumer Safety Specification for Portable Hook-On Chairs, as a children's products safety rule for which the Commission has issued an NOR. Section XIII of the preamble provides additional background information regarding certification of hook-on chairs and issuance of an NOR.

The Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) generally requires that the effective date of a rule be at least 30 days after publication of the final rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). The safety standard for hook-on chairs and the corresponding changes to part 1112 regarding requirements for third party conformity assessment bodies will become effective 6 months after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.

Without evidence to the contrary, CPSC generally considers 6 months to be sufficient time for suppliers to come into compliance with a new standard, and a 6-month effective date is typical for other CPSIA section 104 rules. Six months is also the period that JPMA typically allows for products in the JPMA certification program to transition to a new standard once that standard is published. The Commission proposed a 6-month effective date in the NPR and did not receive any comments regarding the effective date.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires that agencies review a proposed rule and a final rule for the rule's potential economic impact on small entities, including small businesses. Section 604 of the RFA generally requires that agencies prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis (“FRFA”) when promulgating final rules, unless the head of the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Approximately 10 firms currently market portable hook-on chairs in the United States, nine of which are domestic firms. Under U.S. Small Business Administration (“SBA”) guidelines, a manufacturer of hook-on chairs is small if it has 500 or fewer employees, and importers and wholesalers are considered small if they have 100 or fewer employees.

In the NPR briefing package, the Commission certified that the proposed hook-on chair rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. That conclusion has not changed. All of the domestic hook-on chairs appear to conform to the current voluntary standard and are expected to continue to do so. Consequently, costs of compliance, if any, are expected to be negligible. Third party testing costs are expected to be small and economically insignificant (i.e., less than 1 percent of gross revenues for the affected firms). Furthermore, we received no comments questioning or challenging the certification that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Commission's regulations address whether the agency is required to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. Under these regulations, a rule that has “little or no potential for affecting the human environment,” is categorically exempt from this requirement. 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1). The final rule falls within the categorical exemption.

This rule contains information collection requirements that are subject to public comment and review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The preamble to the proposed rule discussed the information collection burden of the proposed rule. Sections 8 and 9 of ASTM F1235-15 contain requirements for marking, labeling, and instructional literature. These requirements fall within the definition of “collection of information,” as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3).

OMB has assigned control number 3041-0170 to this information collection. The Commission did not receive any comments regarding the information collection burden of this proposal.

Section 26(a) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2075(a), provides that when a consumer product safety standard is in effect and applies to a product, no state or political subdivision of a state may either establish or continue in effect a requirement dealing with the same risk of injury unless the state requirement is identical to the federal standard. Section 26(c) of the CPSA also provides that states or political subdivisions of states may apply to the Commission for an exemption from this preemption under certain circumstances. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA refers to the rules to be issued under that section as “consumer product safety rules.” Therefore, the preemption provision of section 26(a) of the CPSA would apply to a rule issued under section 104.

Section 14(a) of the CPSA imposes the requirement that products subject to a consumer product safety rule under the CPSA, or to a similar rule, ban, standard, or regulation under any other Act enforced by the Commission, must be certified as complying with all applicable CPSC-enforced requirements. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). Section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA requires that certification of children's products subject to a children's product safety rule be based on testing conducted by a CPSC-accepted, third party conformity assessment body. Section 14(a)(3) of the CPSA requires the Commission to publish a NOR for the accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies (or laboratories) to assess conformity with a children's product safety rule to which a children's product is subject. The Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Hook-On Chairs, to be codified at 16 CFR part 1233, is a children's product safety rule that requires the issuance of an NOR.

The Commission published a final rule, Requirements Pertaining to Third-Party Conformity Assessment Bodies, 78 FR 15836 (March 12, 2013), which is codified at 16 CFR part 1112 (referred to here as part 1112). This rule became effective on June 10, 2013. Part 1112 establishes requirements for accreditation of third-party conformity assessment bodies (or laboratories) to test for conformance with a children's product safety rule in accordance with section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA. Part 1112 also codifies a list of all of the NORs that the CPSC had published at the time part 1112 was issued. All NORs issued after the Commission published part 1112, such as the standard for hook-on chairs, require the Commission to amend part 1112. Accordingly, the Commission is now amending part 1112 to include the standard for hook-on chairs in the list of other children's product safety rules for which the CPSC has issued NORs.

Laboratories applying for acceptance as a CPSC-accepted third-party conformity assessment body to test to the new standard for hook-on chairs would be required to meet the third-party conformity assessment body accreditation requirements in 16 CFR part 1112, Requirements Pertaining to Third-Party Conformity Assessment Bodies. When a laboratory meets the requirements as a CPSC-accepted third-party conformity assessment body, the laboratory can apply to the CPSC to have 16 CFR part 1233, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Hook-on Chairs, included in its scope of accreditation of CPSC safety rules listed for the laboratory on the CPSC Web site at: www.cpsc.gov/labsearch.

As required by the RFA, staff conducted a FRFA when the Commission issued the part 1112 rule (78 FR 15836, 15855-58). Briefly, the FRFA concluded that the accreditation requirements would not have a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small test laboratories because no requirements were imposed on test laboratories that did not intend to provide third-party testing services. The only test laboratories that were expected to provide such services were those that anticipated receiving sufficient revenue from the mandated testing to justify accepting the requirements as a business decision. Moreover, a test laboratory would only choose to provide such services if it anticipated receiving revenues sufficient to cover the costs of the requirements.

Based on similar reasoning, amending 16 CFR part 1112 to include the NOR for the hook-on chairs standard will not have a significant adverse impact on small test laboratories. Moreover, based upon the number of test laboratories in the United States that have applied for CPSC acceptance of accreditation to test for conformance to other mandatory juvenile product standards, we expect that only a few test laboratories will seek CPSC acceptance of their accreditation to test for conformance with the hook-on chair standard. Most of these test laboratories will have already been accredited to test for conformity to other mandatory juvenile product standards, and the only costs to them would be the cost of adding the hook-on chairs standard to their scope of accreditation. For these reasons, the Commission certifies that the NOR amending 16 CFR part 1112 to include the hook-on chairs standard will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission amends title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

FDA is amending 21 CFR 312.140(a)(2) to update the address for applicants to submit INDs for biological products regulated by CDER. FDA is amending 21 CFR 320.33(f)(3) of its bioequivalence regulations to correct a typographical error by removing the phrase “(first-class metabolism)” and adding in its place “(first-pass metabolism).”

Publication of this document constitutes final action on these changes under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). FDA has determined that notice and public comment are unnecessary because this amendment to the regulations provides only technical changes to update the address for the submission of INDs regulated by CDER and to correct a typographical error in the Agency's bioequivalence regulations.

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR parts 312 and 320 are amended as follows:

Paperwork Reduction Act

The collection of information contained in these final regulations revises a collection of information that has been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) under control number 1545-2019. The revised collection of information in these final regulations is in §§ 1.332-6, 1.351-3, and 1.368-3. By requiring that taxpayers separately report the fair market value and basis of property (including stock) described in section 362(e)(1)(B) and in 362(e)(2)(A) that is transferred in a tax-free transaction, this revised collection of information aids in identifying transactions within the scope of sections 334(b)(1)(B), 362(e)(1), and 362(e)(2) and thereby facilitates the ability of the IRS to verify that taxpayers are complying with sections 334(b)(1)(B), 362(e)(1), and 362(e)(2). The respondents will be corporations and their shareholders.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number.

Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by section 6103.

Sections 334(b)(1)(B) and 362(e)(1) (the anti-loss importation provisions) were added to the Code by the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-357, 188 Stat. 1418) to prevent erosion of the corporate tax base when a person (Transferor) transfers property to a corporation (Acquiring) and the result would be an importation of loss into the federal tax system. Proposed regulations under sections 334(b)(1)(B) and 362(e)(1) were published in the Federal Register (78 FR 54971) on September 9, 2013 (the 2013 NPRM). Three written comments were submitted on the 2013 NPRM; no public hearing was requested or held. Additionally, on March 10, 2005, the Treasury Department and the IRS published in the Federal Register (70 FR 11903-01) a notice of proposed rulemaking (the 2005 NPRM) that, among other things, proposed amendments to the regulations under sections 332 and 351 to reflect statutory changes. No comments were received with respect to the amendments reflecting statutory changes to section 332 and 351, although several comments were received with respect to other aspects of the 2005 NPRM. The 2005 NPRM's proposed amendments that reflect statutory changes are included in this final rule.

The comments with respect to the 2013 NPRM, and the respective responses of the Treasury Department and the IRS, are described in the Summary of Comments and Explanation of Provisions that follows the Summary of the 2013 NPRM.

The 2013 NPRM provided specific rules to implement the statutory framework of the anti-loss importation provisions, such as rules for identifying “importation property” and for determining whether the transfer of that property occurs in a transaction subject to the anti-loss importation provisions (designated a “loss importation transaction” under the 2013 NPRM and these final regulations).

The 2013 NPRM used a hypothetical sale analysis to identify importation property. Under this approach, the actual tax treatment of any gain or loss that would be recognized on a sale of an individual property, first by the Transferor immediately before the transfer and then by Acquiring immediately after the transfer, determined whether that individual property was importation property. If a Transferor's gain or loss on a sale of an individual property immediately before the transfer would not be subject to any tax imposed under subtitle A of the Code (federal income tax), the first condition for classification as importation property would be satisfied. If Acquiring's gain or loss on a sale of the transferred property immediately after the transfer would be subject to federal income tax, the second condition for classification as importation property would be satisfied. If both of these conditions would be satisfied, the property would be importation property.

In general, this determination was made by reference to the tax treatment of the Transferor(s) or Acquiring as hypothetical sellers of the transferred or acquired property, that is, whether the hypothetical seller would take the gain or loss into account in determining its federal income tax liability. This determination had to take into account all relevant facts and circumstances. The 2013 NPRM included a number of examples illustrating this approach. Thus, in one example, a tax-exempt entity transferred property to a taxable domestic corporation, and the determination took into account whether the transferor, though generally tax-exempt, would nevertheless be required to include the amount of the gain or loss in unrelated business taxable income (UBTI) under sections 511 through 514 of the Code. In other examples, a foreign corporation transferred property to a taxable domestic corporation and the determination took into account whether the foreign corporation would be required to include the amount of gain or loss under section 864 or 897 as income effectively connected with, or treated as effectively connected with, the conduct of a U.S. trade or business. Although the examples assumed that there was no applicable income tax treaty, in the case of an applicable income tax treaty, the determination of whether property is importation property would take into account whether the Transferor would be taxable under the business profits article or gains article of the income tax treaty.

Although the general rule in the 2013 NPRM looked solely to the tax treatment of the Transferor(s) and Acquiring as hypothetical sellers, a look-through rule applied if a Transferor was a grantor trust, a partnership, or a small business corporation that elected under section 1362(a) to be an S corporation. In these cases, the determination of whether gain or loss from a hypothetical sale was subject to federal income tax was made by reference to the tax treatment of the gain or loss in the hands of the grantors, the partners, or the S corporation shareholders.

If an organizing instrument allocated gain or loss in different amounts, including by reason of a special allocation under a partnership agreement, the determination of whether gain or loss from a hypothetical sale by the entity was subject to federal income tax would be made by reference to the person to whom, under the terms of the instrument, the gain or loss on the entity's hypothetical sale would actually be allocated, taking into account the entity's net gain or loss actually recognized in the tax period in which the transaction occurred.

In certain circumstances, the Code permits an entity that would otherwise be subject to federal income tax to shift the incidence of federal income taxation to the entity's owners. For example, under sections 651 and 652, and sections 661 and 662, distributions made by a trust are deducted from the trust's income for federal income tax purposes and included in the beneficiary's (or beneficiaries') gross income. Certain domestic corporations, including regulated investment companies (RICs, as defined in section 851(a)), real estate investment trusts (REITs, as defined in section 856(a)), and domestic corporations taxable as cooperatives (Cooperatives; see section 1381) are also able to shift the incidence of federal income taxation by distributing income or gain.

The Treasury Department and the IRS were concerned that disregarding the ability of these entities to shift the incidence of federal income taxation could undermine the anti-loss importation provisions. However, the Treasury Department and the IRS were also concerned that applying a look-through rule in all of these cases would impose a significant administrative burden.

Accordingly, the 2013 NPRM included an anti-avoidance rule that applied to domestic trusts, estates, RICs, REITs, and Cooperatives that directly or indirectly transferred property (including through other such entities) in a transaction described in section 362(a) or 362(b) (a Section 362 Transaction). The rule applied if the property had been directly or indirectly transferred to or acquired by the entity as part of a plan to avoid the application of the anti-loss importation provisions. When the look-through rule applied, the entity was presumed to distribute the proceeds of its hypothetical sale and the tax treatment of the gain or loss in the distributees' hands would determine whether the gain or loss was taken into account in determining a federal income tax liability. If the distributee were also such an entity, the principles of this rule applied to look to the ultimate owners of the interests in the entity.

Prior to the publication of the 2013 NPRM, questions were raised regarding the treatment of property transferred by or to a controlled foreign corporation (CFC), as defined in section 957 (taking into account section 953(c)). The general rules of the 2013 NPRM would not treat gain or loss recognized on a hypothetical sale by a CFC as subject to federal income tax; however, because practitioners raised concerns prior to the publication of the 2013 NPRM, the 2013 NPRM expressly provided that gain or loss recognized on a hypothetical sale by a CFC is not considered subject to federal income tax solely by reason of an income inclusion under section 951(a). The 2013 NPRM similarly provided that gain or loss recognized by a passive foreign investment company, as defined in section 1297(a), was not subject to federal income tax solely by reason of an inclusion under section 1293(a).

If gain or loss realized on a hypothetical sale would be includible in income by more than one person, the 2013 NPRM treated such property, solely for purposes of the anti-loss importation provisions, as tentatively divided into separate portions in proportion to the allocation of gain or loss from a hypothetical sale to each person. Tentatively divided portions were treated and analyzed in the same manner as any other property for purposes of applying the anti-loss importation provisions.

Under the 2013 NPRM, once property had been identified as importation property, Acquiring would determine its basis in the importation property under generally applicable rules (disregarding sections 362(e)(1) and 362(e)(2)) and, if that aggregate basis exceeded the aggregate value of all importation property transferred in the Section 362 Transaction, the transaction was a loss importation transaction subject to the anti-loss importation provisions. If the aggregate basis of the importation property did not exceed such property's value, the anti-loss importation provisions had no further application.

By their terms, section 362(e)(1) and the provisions of the 2013 NPRM apply in the aggregate to all importation property acquired in a transaction, regardless of the number of transferors in the transaction. This rule differs from the transferor-by-transferor approach of section 362(e)(2), which is concerned with whether a transferor would otherwise duplicate loss by retaining loss in stock and transferring property with a net built-in loss.

In response to concerns raised by practitioners prior to the publication of the 2013 NPRM, a special valuation rule for transfers of partnership interests was included in the 2013 NPRM. Under that rule, the value of a partnership interest would be determined in a manner that takes partnership liabilities into account. Specifically, the 2013 NPRM provided that the value of a partnership interest would be the sum of cash that Acquiring would receive for such interest, increased by any § 1.752-1 liabilities (as defined in § 1.752-1(a)(4)) of the partnership that were allocated to Acquiring with regard to such transferred interest under section 752. The 2013 NPRM included an example that illustrated the application and effect of this rule. The 2013 NPRM also clarified that any section 743(b) adjustment to be made as a result of the transaction was made after any section 362(e) basis adjustment.

If a transaction was a loss importation transaction under the 2013 NPRM, Acquiring's basis in each importation property received (including the tentatively divided portions of property determined to be importation property) was an amount equal to the value of that property, notwithstanding the general rules in sections 334(b)(1)(B), 362(a), and 362(b). This rule applied to all importation property, regardless of whether the property's value was more or less than its basis prior to the loss importation transaction.

Immediately following the application of the anti-loss importation provisions (and prior to any application of section 362(e)(2)), any property that was treated as tentatively divided for purposes of applying the anti-loss importation provisions ceased to be treated as divided and was treated as one undivided property (re-constituted property) with a basis equal to the sum of the bases of the portions determined under the anti-loss importation provision, and the bases of all other portions determined under generally applicable provisions (other than section 362(e)(2)).

If the transaction was described in section 362(a), the transferred property was then aggregated on a transferor-by-transferor basis to determine whether further adjustment would be required to the bases of loss properties under section 362(e)(2). The 2013 NPRM included a cross-reference to section 362(e)(2) as well as examples illustrating the application of both section 362(e)(1) and (e)(2) to situations involving multiple transferors and multiple properties that were not all importation properties.

To facilitate the administration of both the anti-loss importation provisions and the anti-duplication provisions in section 362(e)(2), the 2013 NPRM modified the reporting requirements applicable in all affected transactions (section 332 liquidations and transactions described in section 362(a) or section 362(b)) to require taxpayers to identify the bases and values of properties subject to those sections.

The 2013 NPRM also included several modifications to the regulations applicable to corporate liquidations. These modifications were not substantive changes to the law; they were solely to update the regulations to reflect certain statutory changes, including the repeal of the General Utilities doctrine (reflected in the modification of sections 334(a) and 337(a), and the repeal of sections 333 and 334(c)), the removal of former section 334(b)(2) (replaced by section 338), and the relocation of former section 332(c) (subsidiary indebtedness) to current section 337(b). In response to certain regulatory changes, the 2013 NPRM also added several cross-references to regulations under section 367 and 897 to highlight the treatment of certain transfers between foreign corporations.

In general, the commenters agreed with the general framework prescribed in the 2013 NPRM and the positions taken therein by the Treasury Department and the IRS. Accordingly, the final regulations generally adopt the provisions of the 2013 NPRM. However, the final regulations also adopt certain modifications and include certain clarifications in response to comments. These comments, and the respective responses of the Treasury Department and the IRS, are described in the following paragraphs.

The majority of comments received in response to the 2013 NPRM related to issues involving partnerships.

As described previously, under the 2013 NPRM, the determination of whether gain or loss on property transferred by a partnership is subject to federal income tax would be made by reference to the treatment of the partners, taking into account all partnership items for the year of the Section 362 Transaction. One commenter suggested a closing-of-the-books rule instead, asserting such an approach would be more administrable for transferor partnerships. The Treasury Department and the IRS are concerned that the allocation of partnership items as of the date of the transfer could differ from the allocation of such items at the end of the partnership tax year. In such a case, the partner to whom gain or loss on the hypothetical sale of the transferred property would be allocated as of the transfer date (using a hypothetical closing-of-the-books method) may not be the partner to whom the allocation would be made as of the end of the year, taking all items for the year into account. The Treasury Department and the IRS believe that the latter approach more accurately identifies the partner to whom the gain or loss on a sale of the property would be allocated, and thus more accurately determines whether such amounts would be subject to federal income tax. Accordingly, these final regulations do not permit using a closing-of-the-books method.

In response to questions about how to determine to which partner an item would be allocated, and thus its federal income tax treatment, the final regulations clarify that the partnership agreement as well as any applicable rules of law are taken into account.

Another commenter requested that widely held partnerships (WHPs) and publicly traded partnerships (PTPs) not be subject to the look-through rule applicable to all partnerships for determining whether gain or loss on a hypothetical sale is subject to federal income tax. Instead, the commenter requested these entities be afforded treatment similar to that of domestic estates, trusts, RICs, REITs, and Cooperatives (and therefore be subject to look-through treatment only in abusive situations). The commenter's reasons for this suggested modification included that look-through treatment would impose a substantial administrative burden on WHPs and PTPs and that these entities are not generally vehicles for abuse. However, the statute explicitly contemplates that partners, not partnerships, are the focus of the inquiry under section 362(e)(1). WHPs and PTPs are already required to apply a look-through approach to track and report information to their partners. For purposes of determining whether there is an importation of loss for PTPs, the Treasury Department and the IRS will respect determinations derived by applying generally accepted conventions in determining allocable income. See, for example, the conventions set forth in § 1.706-4(c)(3)(ii). Accordingly, the Treasury Department and the IRS do not believe it is necessary or appropriate to treat these partnerships as other than partnerships, and the final regulations retain the approach used in the 2013 NPRM.

Commenters also requested clarification of the interaction of the regulations proposed under section 362(e)(1), the regulations under section 362(e)(2), and regulations proposed under section 704(c)(1)(C) (79 FR 3041 (January 16, 2014)). The Treasury Department and the IRS agree that such clarification would be appropriate. However, the interaction of these provisions cannot be addressed independently of the promulgation of final regulations under section 704(c)(1)(C). Accordingly, these issues will be addressed as part of the finalization of regulations under that section.

The 2013 NPRM, like the final regulations under section 362(e)(2), included examples involving partnership transferors and allocation to partners of resulting adjustments under section 362(e)(1) and (2), including adjustments in the case of a section 362(e)(2)(C) election. The examples direct allocations to the partners that contributed the property transferred by the partnership in order to comply with the legislative purpose of section 362(e)(1) and (2) and to prevent distortions. Commenters agreed with the results provided in the examples but requested a clarification of the authority on which the analyses were based. The analysis reflected in the examples is based on general aggregate and entity principles of partnership tax law, taking into account the aggregate approach reflected in the statutory language of section 362(e)(1), and the purposes and principles of section 362(e)(1) and (2). The rule applying an aggregate approach to partnerships is set forth in § 1.362-3(d)(2) and is illustrated in Example 5 of § 1.362-3(f).

One commenter requested that the final regulations clarify the effect of Rev. Rul. 84-111 (1984-30 IRB 6, 1984-2 CB 88) and Rev. Rul. 99-6 (1999-6 IRB 6, 1999-1 CB 432) on a transfer of all the interests in a partnership to a single transferee in a loss importation transaction. The Treasury Department and the IRS recognize that guidance would be helpful in this area but have concluded that resolution of the complex issues implicated by those rulings is beyond the scope of this project. Accordingly, these final regulations do not address this issue.

As previously described, the 2013 NPRM would only subject domestic estates, trusts, RICs, REITs, and Cooperatives to look-through treatment in certain abusive situations. One comment suggested that the anti-avoidance rule would be strengthened if the final regulations provided certain operating presumptions or factors to be applied in determining whether the rule would apply. The Treasury Department and the IRS have considered this suggestion but determined that the approach of the 2013 NPRM, focusing on the existence of a plan to avoid the anti-loss importation provisions, is appropriate and administrable. Accordingly, the final regulations do not adopt this suggestion.

Another modification suggested by a commenter would allow a foreign non-grantor trust to prove that its beneficiaries were not foreign, in order to avoid treating gain or loss from its hypothetical sale as being treated as not subject to federal income tax. The Treasury Department and the IRS considered the suggestion and determined that such an approach is inconsistent with the anti-loss importation provisions and the general approach of the regulations because, subject to the anti-abuse rule, all non-grantor trusts, not their beneficiaries, are treated as transferors for purposes of the anti-loss importation provisions. In addition, adopting the commenter's suggestion would lead to inappropriate electivity with respect to the application of the anti-loss importation provisions because such an approach would depend on the identity of the foreign non-grantor trust's beneficiaries rather than a determination of whether the foreign non-grantor trust is subject to federal income tax. Accordingly, the final regulations do not adopt this suggestion.

Another commenter suggested that a domestic trust should be excepted from look-through treatment under the anti-abuse rule if it has no distributable net income within the meaning of section 643(a) in the taxable year of the transaction. The Treasury Department and the IRS considered this suggestion and determined that it could lead to inappropriate electivity and abuse because the existence of distributable net income is not controlling in determining whether a transfer furthers a plan to avoid the anti-loss importation provisions. The existence of such a plan is controlling for determining that the transfer is subject to the anti-abuse rule. Accordingly, the final regulations do not adopt this suggestion.

Under the 2013 NPRM, if a tax-exempt entity transferred debt-financed property (as defined in section 514), the disposition of such property would be subject to federal income tax and thus the property could not be importation property. This rule applied even if there was only a de minimis amount of indebtedness and so only a small portion of any gain or loss would be subject to federal income tax. Commenters noted the cliff effect and resulting potential for avoidance of the anti-loss importation provisions. The Treasury Department and the IRS agree, and the final regulations adopt an approach that treats debt-financed property as subject to federal income tax in proportion to the amount of such gain or loss that would be includible in the transferor's UBTI on a sale under sections 511-514. The final regulations provide that portions of property determined under this rule are generally treated under the anti-loss importation provisions in the same manner as portions of property tentatively divided to reflect multiple owners of gain or loss on the property (for example, when a partnership transfers property to Acquiring).

The proposed regulations requested comments on the appropriate treatment of transactions subject to section 367(b) and to either section 334(b)(1)(B) or 362(e)(1). Comments were also specifically requested on what effect a basis reduction required under section 334(b)(1)(B) or 362(e)(1) should have on earnings and profits and any inclusion required under § 1.367(b)-3. One comment suggested that if an inbound liquidation or inter-group asset reorganization gives rise to an inclusion of the all earnings and profits amount under § 1.367(b)-3, the basis reduction under section 334(b)(1)(B) or 362(e)(1), respectively, should be reduced to allow the transferee corporation to preserve an amount of built-in loss equal to the all earnings and profits amount. The comment suggested that this reduction is appropriate because the inclusion of the all earnings and profits amount is intended, in part, as a toll charge for importing basis into the U.S. tax system. However, the comment acknowledged that if such a rule was adopted, anti-abuse rules would be needed to address stuffing transactions and consideration should be given to adjusting the reduction for foreign tax credits associated with the inclusion of the all earnings and profits amount.

The Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that the basis reduction should not be affected by an inclusion of the all earnings and profits amount. First, there is no indication in section 334(b) or 362(e), or their legislative history, that the basis reduction should be reduced or otherwise affected by an inclusion of the all earnings and profits amount. Second, such a reduction may be contrary to the policies underlying these provisions. For example, the built-in loss may have arisen before a domestic corporation acquires all the stock of a foreign corporation such that the built-in loss bears no relation to the all earnings and profits amount. Finally, determining the extent to which the built-in loss relates to the all earnings and profits amount would involve undue complexity. Accordingly, the final regulations do not adopt this suggestion. Furthermore, the final regulations affirmatively state that the basis reduction does not affect the calculation of the all earnings and profits amount.

Commenters requested clarification of whether a transferee's basis in property continued to be considered determined by reference to its transferor's basis, notwithstanding the application of section 334(b)(1)(B) or section 362(e)(1). One comment specifically related to the application of regulations under section 755; other comments related to the treatment of the transaction more generally, including under sections 1223 (holding periods) and 7701(a)(4) (definition of transferred basis transaction). The Treasury Department and the IRS have concluded that the application of the anti-loss importation provisions to section 332 liquidations or Section 362 Transactions should not be viewed as altering the fundamental nature of the transactions to which section 334(b), or section 362(a) or (b), apply. Similarly, the Treasury Department and the IRS have concluded that the anti-duplication provisions in section 362(e)(2) and § 1.362-4 should not be viewed as altering the fundamental nature of the transactions to which they apply. Accordingly, the final regulations expressly provide that, notwithstanding the application of the anti-loss importation or anti-duplication provisions to a transaction, the transferee's basis is generally considered determined by reference to the transferor's basis for federal income tax purposes.

However, solely for purposes of determining the adjustment to the basis of partnership property under section 755 when a partnership interest is transferred in a loss importation transaction, the transferee's basis in the interest will be treated as not determined by reference to the transferor's basis. The reason for this exception under section 755 is that the treatment prescribed under § 1.755-1(b)(2) and (3) (generally applicable to non-substituted basis transactions and providing for basis increases to built-in gain property and basis decreases to built-in loss property) mirrors that prescribed under the anti-loss importation provisions. Accordingly, in order to align the adjustments to partnership property under § 1.755-1 with those made under the anti-loss importation provisions, the final regulations provide that, solely for purposes of applying section 755, a determination of basis under the anti-loss importation provisions is treated as not made by reference to the transferor's basis.

A commenter noted that certain language in the 2013 NPRM could be read in a way that was not intended. The 2013 NPRM states the general rule that Acquiring's basis in importation property in a loss importation transaction is equal to the value of the property immediately after the transaction, “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law[.]” The comment indicated that this language could be read to mean that, if the anti-loss importation provisions applied to a transaction, the transaction would not be subject to other provisions of law, such as section 482, that could further affect basis. Any such implication was wholly unintended and would be inappropriate. Accordingly, the final regulations clarify that other provisions of law do in fact continue to apply.

Immediately following the publication of the 2013 NPRM, a number of questions were raised regarding cross-references to the anti-loss importation and anti-duplication provisions that were proposed to be included in § 1.358-6 (basis in triangular reorganizations). Those cross-references were included solely to put taxpayers on notice that the anti-loss importation and anti-duplication provisions could modify the application of the triangular basis regulations to a transaction subject to those regulations. No substantive rule was intended or effected by the proposed cross-references. However, to clarify the purpose and scope of the cross-references, the final regulations do not include the individual cross-references included in the 2013 NPRM. Instead, the final regulations combine these multiple cross-references into one cross-reference that is included in the general statement of scope in § 1.358-6(a).

Commenters also noted a number of nonsubstantive corrections and clarifications that have been adopted.

Finally, commenters suggested a number of issues that could be the subject of further study, such as the effect of tax treaties, nonfunctional currency, and the application of section 7701(g) (clarification of fair market value in the case of non-recourse indebtedness). These issues are beyond the scope of this project and are therefore not addressed in these final regulations. The Treasury Department and the IRS are considering whether further study of those issues should be undertaken.

In addition, nonsubstantive changes to conform nomenclature with that adopted in these final regulations, as well as to correct obvious errors and clarify cross-references, are made to final regulations under sections 362(e)(2), 705, and 1367 published under TD 9633.

Finally, these final regulations include modifications to §§ 1.332-2 and 1.351-1 that reflect certain statutory changes under sections 332 (relating to ownership of subsidiary stock) and 351 (relating to property permitted to be received by a transferor without recognition of gain or loss) proposed by the Treasury Department and the IRS in the 2005 NPRM (the statutory modifications). As no comments were received with respect to the statutory modifications, the statutory modifications are adopted as final regulations without change.

The final regulations under sections 334(b)(1)(B) and 362(e)(1) generally adopt the proposed effective date and thus are applicable to transactions occurring on or after March 28, 2016, unless completed pursuant to a binding agreement that was in effect prior to March 28, 2016, and all times afterwards. The final regulations also apply to transactions occurring before March 28, 2016 resulting from entity classification elections made under § 301.7701-3 that are filed on or after March 28, 2016. In addition, the final regulations provide that taxpayers may apply these rules to any transaction occurring after October 22, 2004.

Certain IRS regulations, including this one, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory impact assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations. Further, it is hereby certified that these final regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based on the fact that the collection of information requirement in these regulations modifies an existing collection of information by requiring that certain information be reported separately instead of in the aggregate. Although there should be an actual decrease in reporting burden, since taxpayers would no longer be required to aggregate the data they collect, any change is expected to be minimal. Accordingly, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, the proposed regulations preceding these final regulations were submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business, and no comments were received.

The principal author of these regulations is John P. Stemwedel of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Corporate), IRS. However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:

The Coast Guard will enforce the Michigan City Summerfest listed as item (e)(35) in Table 165.929 of 33 CFR 165.929 from 8:45 p.m. until 9:45 p.m. on July 4, 2016. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on a navigable waterway during the fireworks display. Section 165.929 lists many annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan Zone. This safety zone encompasses all waters of Michigan City Harbor and Lake Michigan within the arc of a circle with a 1,000 foot radius from the launch site located in position 41°43.700′ N., 086°54.617′ W. During the enforcement period, no vessel may transit this regulated area without approval from the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan (COTP) or a COTP designated representative. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone shall obey all lawful orders or directions of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or his or her on-scene representative.

This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.929, Safety Zones; Annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone and 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this notification in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or a designated on-scene representative may be contacted via Channel 16, VHF-FM.

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

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

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0031 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before May 27, 2016. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0031, by one of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

In the Federal Register of March 4, 2015 (80 FR 11611) (FRL-9922-68), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 4F8329) by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC., 410 Swing Road, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.637 be amended by establishing a tolerance for residues of the fungicide mandipropamid in or on potato at 0.08 parts per million (ppm). The petition also requested to amend the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.637 for residues of mandipropamid in or on potato, wet peel at 0.12 ppm, and amend the current tolerance commodity terminology which contains potato from “vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C,” to “vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C, except potato.” That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has modified the tolerances being established by this document. The reason for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.

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

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

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

Subchronic and chronic studies indicate that the liver is the primary target organ for mandipropamid. Liver effects were identified in subchronic studies with rats, mice, and dogs. Liver effects included: Periportal hypertrophy (rats), increased eosinophilia (rats and mice), increased plasma albumin, total protein, cholesterol, and gamma-glutamyl transferase (rats), increased liver weights (rats, mice and dogs), increased liver enzymes (dogs), increased pigment in hepatocytes and Kupffer cells (dogs), and centrilobular hepatocyte vacuolation (dogs). In the chronic dog study, increases in microscopic pigment in the liver and increased liver enzymes were observed. No liver effects were observed in chronic rat and mouse studies up to the highest doses tested. Instead, nephrotoxicity was observed in the chronic rat study and only decreased body weight and food utilization was observed in the chronic mouse study. The findings of liver toxicity and nephrotoxicity are consistent with the results from metabolism studies where the tissues with the highest levels of radioactivity were the liver followed by the kidney.

No evidence of neurotoxicity was observed in the acute or subchronic neurotoxicity screening battery. No systemic or dermal toxicity was observed following dermal exposure for 28 days up to the limit dose.

No evidence of increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility was seen in developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits or in a reproduction study in rats. The only effects observed in fetuses or pups were in the two-generation reproduction study, where decreased pup body weight was observed in the presence of maternal toxicity (decreased body weight, body weight gain, and food utilization). In addition, there was a delay in preputial separation in F1 males which was considered to be the result of lower body weights.

There was no evidence of tumors in the carcinogenicity study in mice or in the chronic/carcinogenicity study in rats and there was no evidence that mandipropamid was mutagenic or clastogenic. Therefore, mandipropamid is classified as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”

Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by mandipropamid as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document titled “Mandipropamid: Human Health Risk Assessment For Amended Use of the Fungicide on Potato, to Replace the Established Tolerance in Tuberous and Corm Vegetable Subgroup 1C, and to Revise the Established Tolerance in Potato Wet Peel” on page 30 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0031.

Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.

A summary of the toxicological endpoints for mandipropamid used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule published in the Federal Register of December 20, 2013 (78 FR 76987) (FRL-9903-57).

1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to mandipropamid. EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing mandipropamid tolerances in 40 CFR 180.637. EPA assessed dietary exposures from mandipropamid in food as follows:

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

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

ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed 100 percent crop treated (PCT) and tolerance level residues, with the exception of vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C, which was assessed at 0.115 ppm, assuming tolerance-level residues of parent mandipropamid (0.09 ppm) and including the SYN 500003 metabolite in parent-equivalents (at 0.025 ppm).

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

iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use anticipated residue or PCT information in the dietary assessment for mandipropamid. Tolerance-level residues and 100 PCT were assumed for all existing and proposed food commodities, except subgroup 1C, as described above.

2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for mandipropamid in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of mandipropamid. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.

Based on the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) model for surface water and both the Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of mandipropamid for chronic exposures are estimated to be 9.0 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 79 ppb for ground water.

Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For the chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 79 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

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

Mandipropamid is not registered for any specific use patterns that would result in residential exposure.

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

EPA has not found mandipropamid to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and mandipropamid does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that mandipropamid does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

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

2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There were no treatment-related effects observed in dams or fetuses in the developmental toxicity studies in rats or rabbits up to the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day. In the rat reproductive study, decreased pup weight occurred only in the presence of comparable maternal toxicity (decreased body weight). Therefore, the Agency concludes that there is no increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility to rat or rabbit offspring exposed in utero or post-natally to mandipropamid, and there are no residual uncertainties with respect to pre- or postnatal exposure.

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

i. The toxicity database for mandipropamid is complete.

ii. There is no indication that mandipropamid is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional uncertainty factors (UFs) to account for neurotoxicity.

iii. There is no evidence that mandipropamid results in increased susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction study.

iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues, except for subgroup 1C, as described in Section C.1.ii. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to mandipropamid in drinking water. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by mandipropamid.

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

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

2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to mandipropamid from food and water will utilize 42% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. There are no residential uses for mandipropamid.

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

Both a short- and intermediate-term adverse effects were identified; however, mandipropamid is not registered for any use patterns that would result in either short- or intermediate-term residential exposure. Short- and intermediate-term risk is assessed based on short- and intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no short- or intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess short-term risk), no further assessment of short- or intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating short- and intermediate-term risk for mandipropamid.

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

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

Adequate enforcement methodology (high performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometric detection (LC/MS/MS)) is available to enforce the tolerance expression.

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

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

There is a Codex MRL established on potato at 0.01 ppm. With the increased tolerance in subgroup 1C to 0.09 ppm, the U.S. tolerance will no longer be in harmonization with Codex's MRL in potato. Harmonization with the Codex value is not feasible, given that the Codex MRL is based on the foliar use pattern only, and the U.S. tolerance is based on the proposed combination of seed piece treatment and foliar uses.

Instead of the proposed tolerance in potato (0.08 ppm), EPA is revising the existing tolerance for residues in tuberous and corm vegetable subgroup 1C from 0.01 to 0.09 ppm. The proposed tolerance was based on a dataset that only included results from trials conducted in the U.S. The calculated tolerance in subgroup 1C, based on US and Canadian potato field trial data entered into the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD) tolerance calculation procedure, was 0.07 ppm. However, EPA is establishing a tolerance in subgroup 1C of 0.09 ppm, in order to harmonize with Canada's recommended MRL.

The proposed tolerance in potato wet peel (0.12 ppm) was based on the average processing factor (2.0X) multiplied by the highest average field trial (HAFT) (0.056 ppm). However, the tolerance being established (0.15 ppm) is based on the rounding protocol in the User Guide for the OECD tolerance calculation procedure.

It is not appropriate to establish the proposed tolerance in tuberous and corm vegetable subgroup 1C (except potato), because potato is the only representative commodity for subgroup 1C. For the same reason, the proposed separate tolerance in potato is unnecessary.

Therefore, the existing tolerance for residues of mandipropamid on “potato, wet peel” is modified from 0.03 ppm to 0.15 ppm and the existing tolerance on “vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C” is modified from 0.01 to 0.09 ppm.

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

This document announces that, on March 17, 2016, OMB approved the information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Incentive Auction Report and Order, FCC 14-50, published at 79 FR 48442, August 15, 2014. The OMB Control Numbers are 3060-0016, 3060-0027, 3060-0386, 3060-0837, 3060-0928, 3060-0932 and 3060-1216. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the effective date of the requirements. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-1194, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via the Internet if you send them to [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 OMB approval on March 17, 2016, for some of the information collection requirements contained in FCC 14-50, 47 CFR 73.3700(b)(1)(i) through (v), (vii), (b)(2)(i) and (ii), (b)(3), (b)(4)(i) and (ii), and (b)(5); 73.3700(c); 73.3700(d); 73.3700(f); 73.3700(g); 73.3700(h)(2), 73.3700(h)(5), and FCC Form 2100, Schedules A, B, E and F.

Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.

No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Numbers are 3060-0016, 3060-0027, 3060-0386, 3060-0837, 3060-0928, 3060-0932 and 3060-1216. The foregoing document is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 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 No.: 3060-0016.

OMB Approval Date: March 17, 2016.

OMB Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.

Title: FCC Form 2100, Application for Media Bureau Audio and Video Service Authorization, Schedule C (Former FCC Form 346); Sections 74.793(d) and 74.787; LPTV Out-of-Core Digital Displacement Application; Section 73.3700(g)(1)-(3), Post-Incentive Auction Licensing and Operations.

Form No.: FCC Form 2100, Schedule C.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not for profit institutions; State, local or Tribal government.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 4,250 respondents and 4,250 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 2.5-7 hours (total of 9.5 hours).

Frequency of Response: One-time reporting requirement; on occasion reporting requirement; third party disclosure requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in Section 154(i), 303, 307, 308 and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 40,375 hours.

Annual Cost Burden: $23,579,000.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

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

Needs and Uses: The collection was submitted to the Office of Management (OMB) for the approval of information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Incentive Auction Order, FCC 14-50, which adopted rules for holding an Incentive Auction, as required by the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Spectrum Act). The information gathered in this collection will be used to allow Low Power television stations and TV Translator stations that are displaced as a result of the Federal Communications Commission's Incentive Auction to submit an application for displacement relief during a restricted filing window. Form 2100, Schedule C is also used to apply for authority to construct or make changes to a Low Power Television, TV Translator or TV Booster broadcast station. OMB approved the requirements.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0027.

OMB Approval Date: March 17, 2016.

OMB Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.

Title: Application for Construction Permit for Commercial Broadcast *71795 Station, FCC Form 301; FCC Form 2100, Application for Media Bureau Audio and Video Service Authorization, Schedule A; 47 CFR 73.3700(b)(1) and (2), Post Auction Licensing.

Form No.: FCC Form 2100, Schedule A.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not for profit institutions; State, local or Tribal Government.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 3,080 respondents and 6,516 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1-6.25 hours.

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

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in Sections 154(i), 303 and 308 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 15,287 hours.

Annual Cost Burden: $62,775,788.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

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

Needs and Uses: The collection was submitted to the Office of Management (OMB) for the approval of information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Incentive Auction Order, FCC 14-50, which adopted rules for holding an Incentive Auction, as required by the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Spectrum Act). The information gathered in this collection will be used to allow full-power television broadcast stations that are relocated to a new channel following the Federal Communications Commission's Incentive Auction to submit a construction application to build new facilities to operate on their post-auction channel. Form 2100, Schedule A is also used to apply for authority to construct a new commercial AM, FM, or TV broadcast station and to make changes to existing facilities of such a station. OMB approved the requirements.

OMB Control No.: 3060-1216.

OMB Approval Date: March 17, 2016.

OMB Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.

Title: Media Bureau Incentive Auction Implementation, Sections 73.3700(b)(4)(i)-(ii), (c), (d),

(h)(5)-(6) and (g)(4).

Form No.: N/A.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not for profit institutions.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 1,950 respondents and 174,219 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: .004-15 hours.

Frequency of Response: One-time reporting requirement; on occasion reporting requirement; recordkeeping requirement.

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

Total Annual Burden: 24,932 hours.

Annual Cost Burden: $1,214,400.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

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

Needs and Uses: The collection was submitted to the Office of Management (OMB) for the approval of information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Incentive Auction Order, FCC 14-50, which adopted rules for holding an Incentive Auction, as required by the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Spectrum Act). The information gathered in this collection will be used to require broadcasters transitioning to a new station following the Incentive Auction, or going off the air as a result of a winning bid in the Incentive Auction, to notify their viewers of the date the station will terminate operations on its pre-Auction channel by running public service announcements, and allow these broadcasters to inform MVPDs of their relinquishment or change in channel. It requires channel sharing agreements enter into by television broadcast licensees to contain certain provisions regarding access to facilities, financial obligations and to define each party's rights and responsibilities; the Commission will review each channel sharing agreement to ensure it comports with general rules and policies regarding license agreements. The provisions contained in this collection also require wireless licensees to notify low-power television and TV translator stations commence wireless operations and the likelihood of receiving harmful interference from the low power TV or TV translator station to such operations within the wireless licensee's licensed geographic service area. Finally, it requires license relinquishment stations and channel sharing stations to comply with notification and cancellation procedures as they terminate operations on their pre-Auction channel. OMB approved the requirements.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0386.

OMB Approval Date: March 17, 2016.

OMB Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.

Title: Special Temporary Authorization (STA) Requests; Notifications; and Informal Filings; Sections 1.5, 73.1615, 73.1635, 73.1740 and 73.3598; CDBS Informal Forms; Section 74.788; Low Power Television, TV Translator and Class A Television Digital Transition Notifications; Section 73.3700(b)(5), Post Auction Licensing; Section 73.3700(f), Service Rule Waiver; FCC Form 337.

Form No.: FCC Form 337.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not for profit institutions; State, local or Tribal government.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 6,609 respondents and 6,609 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: .50-4.0 hours.

Frequency of Response: One-time reporting requirement and on occasion reporting requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 157 and 309(j) as amended; Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Public Law 112-96, § 6402 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(8)(G)), 6403 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 1452), 126 Stat. 156 (2012) (Spectrum Act); and Sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 7, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 312, 316, 318, 319, 324, 325, 336, and 337 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 5,475 hours.

Annual Cost Burden: $2,156,510.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

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

Needs and Uses: The collection was submitted to the Office of Management (OMB) for the approval of information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Incentive Auction Order, FCC 14-50, which adopted rules for holding an Incentive Auction, as required by the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Spectrum Act). The information gathered in this collection will be used to allow television broadcast stations to request special temporary authority (STA) to operate, seek an extension of time to complete construction, request a waiver of the Commission's service rules following the Incentive Auction, and make other informal requests and submissions. OMB approved the requirements.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0837.

OMB Approval Date: March 17, 2016.

OMB Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.

Title: FCC Form 2100, Application for Media Bureau Audio and Video Service Authorization, Schedule B (Former FCC Form 302-DTV).

Form No.: FCC Form 2100, Schedule B.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not for profit institutions.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 955 respondents and 955 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 2 hours.

Frequency of Response: One-time reporting requirement and on occasion reporting requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in sections 154(i), 307, 308, 309, and 319 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; the Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999, Public Law 106-113, 113 Stat. Appendix I at pp. 1501A-594-1501A-598 (1999) (codified at 47 U.S.C. 336(f)); and the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Public Law 112-96, sections 6402 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(8)(G)), 6403 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 1452), 126 Stat. 156 (2012) (Spectrum Act).

Total Annual Burden: 1,910 hours.

Annual Cost Burden: $460,070.00.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

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

Needs and Uses: The collection was submitted to the Office of Management (OMB) for the approval of information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Incentive Auction Order, FCC 14-50, which adopted rules for holding an Incentive Auction, as required by the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Spectrum Act). The information gathered in this collection will be used to allow full-power television broadcast stations to file a license to cover an authorized construction permit once facilities have been constructed. In addition, full-power television broadcast stations that enter into channel sharing agreements following the Commission's Incentive Auction will use FCC Form 2100, Schedule B to file an application for a license for the shared channel sharing, and will allow a full-power station, upon termination of its channel sharing agreement, to file an application to change its license to non-shared status using FCC Form 2100, Schedule B. The requirements were approved by OMB.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0928.

OMB Approval Date: March 17, 2016.

OMB Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.

Title: FCC Form 2100, Application for Media Bureau Audio and Video Service Authorization, Schedule F (Formerly FCC 302-CA); 47 CFR 73.3572(h) and 47 CFR 73.3700(b)).

Form No.: FCC Form 2100, Schedule F.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not for profit institutions; State, local or Tribal Government.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 955 respondents and 955 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 2 hours.

Frequency of Response: One-time reporting requirement and on occasion reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 1,910 hours.

Annual Cost Burden: $300,825.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

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

Needs and Uses: The collection was submitted to the Office of Management (OMB) for the approval of information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Incentive Auction Order, FCC 14-50, which adopted rules for holding an Incentive Auction, as required by the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Spectrum Act). The information gathered in this collection will be used by Class A stations seeking a license to cover their authorized construction permit facilities and Class A stations entering into a channel sharing agreement. These requirements were approved by OMB.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0932.

OMB Approval Date: March 17, 2016.

OMB Expiration Date: March 31, 2019.

Title: FCC Form 2100, Application for Media Bureau Audio and Video Service Authorization, Schedule E (Former FCC Form 301-CA); 47 CFR 73.3700(b)(1)(i)-(v) and (vii), (b)(2)(i) and (ii); 47 CFR 74.793(d).

Form No.: FCC Form 2100, Schedule E (Application for Media Bureau Audio and Video Service Authorization) (Former FCC Form 301-CA).

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not for profit institutions; State, Local or Tribal Government.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 725 respondents and 725 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 2.25 hours-6 hours (for a total of 8.25 hours).

Frequency of Response: One-time reporting requirement; On occasion reporting requirement; Third party disclosure requirement; Recordkeeping requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 157 and 309(j) as amended; Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Public Law 112-96, sections 6402 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(8)(G)), 6403 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 1452), 126 Stat. 156 (2012) (Spectrum Act) and the Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999.

Total Annual Burden: 5,981 hours.

Annual Cost Burden: $3,949,550.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

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

Needs and Uses: The collection was submitted to the Office of Management (OMB) for the approval of information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Incentive Auction Order, FCC 14-50, which adopted rules for holding an Incentive Auction, as required by the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Spectrum Act). The information gathered in this collection will be used allow Class A television stations to make changes in their authorized facilities. Specifically, Class A stations assigned to a new channel following the Incentive Auction must file a minor change application on FCC Form 2100, Schedule E following release of the Channel Reassignment Public Notice. Under certain circumstances, licensees of stations reassigned to a new channel within their existing band to propose transmission facilities in their construction permit applications that will extend their coverage contours. In addition, there will be a priority processing window for licensees of reassigned stations, UHF-to-VHF stations, or High-VHF-to-Low-VHF stations that, for reasons beyond their control, are unable to construct facilities that meet the technical parameters specified in the Channel Reassignment Public Notice, or the permissible contour coverage variance from those technical parameters specified in section 73.3700(b)(1)(ii) or (iii). Channel sharee stations file a minor change application for a construction permit for the channel on which the channel sharer operates at least sixty (60) days prior to the date by which it must terminate operations on its pre-auction channel and must include a copy of the channel sharing agreement. In addition, subject to limitations set out in the rules, a Class A licensee of a reassigned station, a UHF-to-VHF station, or a High-VHF-to-Low-VHF station may file a minor change application for a construction permit on FCC Form 2100 Schedule E during a filing window to be announced by the Media Bureau by public notice, in order to request a change in the technical parameters specified in the Channel Reassignment Public Notice with respect to height above average terrain (HAAT), effective radiated power (ERP), or transmitter location that would be considered a minor change under sections 73.3572(a)(1), (2) or 74.787(b). FCC Form 2100, Schedule E was modified to accommodate new channel sharing provisions. OMB approved the requirements.

The fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish includes king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, and cobia, and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils (Councils) and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

The Gulf migratory group king mackerel is divided into western and eastern zones. The Gulf's eastern zone for king mackerel is further divided into the Florida west coast northern and southern subzones that have separate commercial quotas. The 2015 to 2016 fishing year quota for the hook-and-line component of the commercial sector in the Florida west coast southern subzone is 551,448 lb (250,133 kg) (50 CFR 622.384(b)(1)(i)(B)(1)).

From November 1 through March 31, the southern subzone encompasses an area of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) south of a line extending due west from the Lee and Collier County, Florida, boundary on the Florida west coast, and south of a line extending due east from the Monroe and Miami-Dade County, Florida, boundary on the Florida east coast, which includes the EEZ off Collier and Monroe Counties, Florida. From April 1 through October 31, the southern subzone is reduced to the EEZ off Collier County, and the EEZ off Monroe County becomes part of the Atlantic migratory group area.

Under 50 CFR 622.8(b) and 622.388(a)(1), NMFS is required to close any component of the king mackerel commercial sector when its quota has been reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification at the Office of the Federal Register. NMFS has determined the commercial quota for the hook-and-line component of the commercial sector for Gulf migratory group king mackerel in the southern Florida west coast subzone will be reached by March 27, 2016. Accordingly, the hook-and-line component of the commercial sector for Gulf migratory group king mackerel in the Florida west coast southern subzone is closed effective 12:01 a.m., local time, March 27, 2016, through the end of the fishing year on June 30, 2016.

On March 11, 2016, NMFS also closed the Florida west coast southern subzone to commercial harvest of king mackerel caught by run around gillnet gear, because the quota for that sector was reached (81 FR 12826, March 11, 2016). Therefore, during the closures no person aboard a vessel for which a valid commercial permit for king mackerel has been issued may harvest or possess Gulf migratory group king mackerel in or from Federal waters of the closed subzone, as specified in 50 CFR 622.384(e). However, there is one exception. A person aboard a vessel that has a valid Federal charter vessel/headboat permit and also has a commercial king mackerel permit for coastal migratory pelagic fish may continue to retain king mackerel in or from the closed subzone under the 2-fish daily recreational bag limit, provided the vessel is operating as a charter vessel or headboat. Charter vessels or headboats that have a valid commercial king mackerel permit are considered to be operating as a charter vessel or headboat when they carry a passenger who pays a fee or when more than three persons are aboard, including operator and crew.

The Regional Administrator, NMFS Southeast Region, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of Gulf migratory group king mackerel and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.

This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.8(b) and 622.388(a)(1) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.

This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries (AA), finds that the need to immediately implement this action constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this temporary rule are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the regulations at 50 CFR 622.8(b) and 622.388(a)(1) have already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Such procedures are contrary to the public interest, because there is a need to immediately implement this action to protect the king mackerel resource since the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial quota. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this action would require time and would potentially result in a harvest well in excess of the established commercial quota.

For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness of the action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic includes gray triggerfish and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

The final rule implementing FMP Amendment 29 divided the commercial ACL (equal to the commercial quota) for gray triggerfish in the South Atlantic into two 6-month fishing seasons and allocated 50 percent, 156,162 lb (70,834 kg), round weight, of the total commercial ACL of 312,324 lb (141,668 kg), round weight, to each fishing season, January through June, and July through December (80 FR 30947, June 1, 2015), as specified in 50 CFR 622.190(a)(8)(i) and (ii).

Under 50 CFR 622.193(q)(1)(i), NMFS is required to close the commercial sector for gray triggerfish when either commercial quota specified in § 622.190(a)(8)(i) or (ii) is reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. NMFS has determined that the commercial quota for South Atlantic gray triggerfish for the January through June fishing season will be reached by April 2, 2016. Accordingly, the commercial sector for South Atlantic gray triggerfish is closed effective at 12:01 a.m., local time, April 2, 2016, until the start of the July through December fishing season on July 1, 2016.

The operator of a vessel with a valid Federal commercial vessel permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper having gray triggerfish on board must have landed and bartered, traded, or sold such gray triggerfish prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, April 2, 2016. During the closure, the bag limit specified in 50 CFR 622.187(b)(8), and the possession limits specified in 50 CFR 622.187(c), apply to all harvest or possession of gray triggerfish in or from the South Atlantic EEZ. Also, during the closure, the sale or purchase of gray triggerfish taken from the South Atlantic EEZ is prohibited. The prohibition on the sale or purchase does not apply to gray triggerfish that were harvested, landed ashore, and sold prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, April 2, 2016, and were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor.

For a person on board a vessel for which a valid Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery has been issued, the bag and possession limits and sale and purchase provisions of the commercial closure for gray triggerfish apply regardless of whether the fish are harvested in state or Federal waters, as specified in 50 CFR 622.190(c)(1)(ii).

The Regional Administrator, NMFS Southeast Region, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of gray triggerfish and the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.

This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.193(q)(1)(i) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.

This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries (AA), finds that the need to immediately implement this action to close the commercial sector for gray triggerfish constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such procedures are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule implementing FMP Amendment 29, which established the split commercial season for gray triggerfish, and the rule that established the closure provisions have already been subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Such procedures are contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action to protect gray triggerfish since the capacity of the fishing fleet allows for rapid harvest of the commercial quota. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and would potentially result in a harvest well in excess of the established commercial quota.

For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

Electronic Access

This final rule is accessible via the Internet at the Office of the Federal Register Web site at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/search/home.action. Background information and documents are available at the Pacific Fishery Management Council's Web site at http://www.pcouncil.org/.

The PCGFMP and its implementing regulations at title 50 in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 660, subparts C through G, regulate fishing for over 90 species of groundfish off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California. Groundfish specifications and management measures are developed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), and are implemented by NMFS.

The International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) establishes total allowable catch (TAC) amounts for Pacific halibut each year in January. Under the authority of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act, and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 300.63, a Catch Sharing Plan for IPHC Area 2A (waters off the U.S. West Coast), developed by the Council and implemented by the Secretary, allocates portions of the annual TAC among fisheries off Washington, Oregon, and California.

Pacific halibut is generally a prohibited species for vessels fishing in Pacific coast groundfish fisheries, unless explicitly allowed in groundfish regulations and authorized by the Pacific halibut Catch Sharing Plan.

In years where the Pacific halibut TAC is above 900,000 lb (408.2 mt), the Catch Sharing Plan allows the limited entry fixed gear sablefish primary fishery an incidental total catch allowance for Pacific halibut north of Pt. Chehalis, WA (46°53.30′ N. lat.). The 2016 Pacific halibut Area 2A TAC is 1,140,000 lb (517.1 mt). Consistent with the provisions of the Catch Sharing Plan, the limited entry fixed gear sablefish primary fishery is allowed an incidental total catch limit of 49,686 lb (22.54 mt) for 2016.

At its March 2016 meeting, the Council considered the new 2016 total allowable catch (TAC) for Pacific halibut in Area 2A (waters off the U.S. West coast), and the total catch of Pacific halibut in the limited entry fixed gear sablefish primary fishery in recent years. Because the 2016 allocation of halibut to the sablefish primary fishery is similar to landings in 2007 and 2008, the Council recommended a landing restriction similar to the one approved in those years of 110 lbs of halibut for every 1,000 lbs of sablefish and up to two additional halibut in excess of the ratio. NMFS notes that, given the increased allocation in 2016, liberalizing the incidental catch restrictions is anticipated to allow total catch of Pacific halibut to approach, but not exceed, the 2016 allocation for the sablefish primary fishery.

In order to allow incidental halibut catch in the sablefish primary fishery to begin on April 1, the Council recommended and NMFS is implementing incidental halibut retention regulations at 50 CFR 660.231(b)(3)(iv) to allow the catch ratio of “110 lb (50 kg) dressed weight of halibut for every 1,000 pounds (454 kg) dressed weight of sablefish landed and up to 2 additional halibut in excess of the 110-pounds-per-1,000-pound ratio per landing” to be in effect “From April 1 through October 31.”

The retention limits for halibut were not revised as part of the 2015-2016 harvest specifications and management measures because the Pacific halibut TAC is developed each year based on the most current scientific information, and the TAC for 2016 was not determined until the IPHC meeting in January, 2016.

This final rule makes routine inseason adjustments to groundfish fishery management measures, based on the best available information, consistent with the PCGFMP and its implementing regulations. The adjustment to the halibut incidental catch restrictions in the limited entry fixed gear sablefish primary fishery is taken under the authority of the Magnuson Stevens Act, based on actions taken under the Northern Pacific Halibut Act and implementing regulations, and is consistent with the approved Catch Sharing Plan.

This action is taken under the authority of 50 CFR 660.60(c) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

The aggregate data upon which these actions are based are available for public inspection at the Office of the Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS, during business hours.

For the following reasons, NMFS finds good cause to waive prior public notice and comment on the revisions to groundfish management measures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) because notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Also, for the same reasons, NMFS finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), so that this final rule may become effective March 25, 2016.

As described above, this inseason action is based on information that became available very recently. The changes to the incidental halibut retention in the sablefish primary fishery north of Pt. Chehalis, WA (46°53.30′ N. lat.), and the subsequent proposed management measure changes are based in part on decisions made by the IPHC at its January 2016 meeting. At that meeting, the IPHC determined the 2016 halibut TAC based on the most current scientific information regarding the status of the halibut stock. Based on this action, the Council made its final recommendations at its March 9-14, 2016 meeting. The Council considered the public comments on this matter and recommended that these changes be implemented by April 1, 2016. There was not sufficient time after that meeting to complete notice and comment rulemaking before these changes need to be in effect. For the actions to be implemented in this final rule, affording the time necessary for prior notice and opportunity for public comment would prevent NMFS from managing fisheries using the best available science to approach, without exceeding, allocations in accordance with the PCGFMP, the Northern Pacific Halibut Act, and other applicable laws. The adjustments to management measures in this document affect commercial fisheries off Washington State. These adjustments to management measures must be implemented in a timely manner, by April 1, 2016 or as quickly as possible thereafter, to allow incidental catch of halibut in the sablefish primary fishery, reducing regulatory discards, while keeping total catch below the 2016 halibut Area 2A allocation.

No aspect of this action is controversial, and changes of this nature were anticipated in the biennial harvest specifications and management measures established for 2015-2016.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, NMFS finds good cause to waive prior notice and comment and to waive the delay in effectiveness.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is amended as follows:

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

The annual pollock TACs in Statistical Areas 610, 620, and 630 of the GOA are apportioned among four seasons, in accordance with § 679.23(d)(2). Regulations at § 679.20(a)(5)(iv)(B) allow the underharvest of a seasonal apportionment to be added to subsequent seasonal apportionments, provided that any revised seasonal apportionment does not exceed 20 percent of the seasonal apportionment for a given statistical area. Therefore, NMFS is increasing the B season apportionment of pollock in Statistical Areas 610, 620, and 630 of the GOA to reflect the underharvest of pollock in those areas during the A season. In addition, any underharvest remaining beyond 20 percent of the originally specified seasonal apportionment in a particular area may be further apportioned to other statistical areas. Therefore, NMFS also is increasing the B season apportionment of pollock to Statistical Areas 610 and 630 based on the underharvest of pollock in Statistical Areas 620 of the GOA. These adjustments are described below.

The B seasonal apportionment of the 2016 pollock TAC in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA is 3,826 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (81 FR 14740, March 18, 2016). In accordance with § 679.20(a)(5)(iv)(B), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), hereby increases the B season apportionment for Statistical Area 610 by 765 mt to account for the underharvest of the TAC in Statistical Areas 610 and 620 in the A season. This increase is in proportion to the estimated pollock biomass and is not greater than 20 percent of the B seasonal apportionment of the TAC in Statistical Area 610. Therefore, the revised B seasonal apportionment of the pollock TAC in Statistical Area 610 is 4,591 mt (3,826 mt plus 765 mt).

The B seasonal apportionment of the pollock TAC in Statistical Area 620 of the GOA is 50,747 mt as established by the final 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (81 FR 14740, March 18, 2016). In accordance with § 679.20(a)(5)(iv)(B), the Regional Administrator hereby increases the B seasonal apportionment for Statistical Area 620 by 10,149 mt to account for the underharvest of the TAC in Statistical Areas 620 in the A season. This increase is not greater than 20 percent of the B seasonal apportionment of the TAC in Statistical Area 620. Therefore, the revised B seasonal apportionment of the pollock TAC in Statistical Area 620 is 60,896 mt (50,747 mt plus 10,149 mt).

The B seasonal apportionment of pollock TAC in Statistical Area 630 of the GOA is 5,083 mt as established by the final 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (81 FR 14740, March 18, 2016). In accordance with § 679.20(a)(5)(iv)(B), the Regional Administrator hereby increases the B seasonal apportionment for Statistical Area 630 by 1,016 mt to account for the underharvest of the TAC in Statistical Areas 620 and 630 in the A season. This increase is in proportion to the estimated pollock biomass and is not greater than 20 percent of the B seasonal apportionment of the TAC in Statistical Area 630. Therefore, the revised B seasonal apportionment of pollock TAC in Statistical Area 630 is 6,099 mt (5,083 mt plus 1,016 mt).

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would provide opportunity to harvest increased pollock seasonal apportionments. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of March 18, 2016.

The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.