        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 721
        [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0918; FRL-9387-7]
        RIN 2070-AB27
        Proposed Modification of Significant New Uses of 1-Propene, 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          Under section 5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA is proposing to amend the significant new use rule (SNUR) for the chemical substance identified as 1-Propene, 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-, which was the subject of premanufacture notice (PMN) P-07-601. This action would amend the SNUR to allow the manufacture and processing for certain uses without requiring a significant new use notice (SNUN). EPA is proposing this amendment based on review of newly submitted exposure and toxicity data.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before July 1, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0918, by one of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
          • Hand Delivery: OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA East Bldg., Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. ATTN: Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0918. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the DCO is (202) 564-8930. Such deliveries are only accepted during the DCO's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

            Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-918. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or email. The regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

            Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-0280. Docket visitors are required to show photographic identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray machine and subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must be visible at all times in the building and returned upon departure.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

            For technical information contact: Jim Alwood, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-8974; email address: alwood.jim@epa.gov.

            For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. General Information
        A. Does this action apply to me?
        You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, import, process, or use the chemical substance identified as 1-Propene, 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro- (PMN P-07-601). Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
        • Manufacturers, importers, or processors of the subject chemical substance (NAICS codes 325 and 324110), e.g., chemical manufacturers and petroleum refineries.

        This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in § 721.5. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
        B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
        1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
        2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

        i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
        ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

        iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.

        iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
        v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
        vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.
        vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
        viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
        II. Background
        A. What action is the Agency taking?
        In the Federal Register of October 27, 2010 (75 FR 65987) (FRL-8846-8), EPA published a final SNUR (codified at § 721.10182) for the chemical substance identified as 1-Propene, 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-, (PMN P-07-601; CAS No. 754-12-1; which is also identified by the trade name HFO-1234yf), in accordance with the procedures at § 721.170. A SNUR requires persons who intend to manufacture, import, or process the chemical substance for an activity designated as a significant new use to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity.
        EPA is proposing to amend the scope of the SNUR as detailed in this unit. In addition, EPA is proposing to clarify the language in the regulatory text to more clearly communicate that the manufacture and processing for use as a refrigerant in motor vehicle air conditioning systems in new passenger cars and vehicles as reported in the original PMN is not subject to the notification requirement. The docket includes information considered by the Agency in developing the final rule and the new information considered when proposing the modification to this rule.
        PMN Number P-07-601

          Chemical name: 1-Propene, 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-.

          CAS number: 754-12-1.

          Federal Register
          publication date and reference: October 27, 2010 (75 FR 65987).

          Basis for modification of the SNUR: In the final SNUR, EPA explained that it sought additional information to review use by consumers attempting to recharge air conditioning systems in vehicles originally charged with the refrigerant. Specifically, EPA sought an acute rabbit inhalation toxicity study to better characterize health effects from a single exposure and sought additional information on techniques or equipment to minimize exposure to consumers and data that quantifies exposures for durations shorter than the 30-minute time-weighted average (TWA) presented in the exposure study conducted by the PMN submitter. In response, the PMN submitter conducted an acute inhalation toxicity study with rabbits on the PMN substance. The submitted results demonstrated no toxicity in the one-hour exposure of rabbits to 0, 50,000, and 100,000 parts per million (ppm) of the PMN substance. The human equivalent concentration of the 100,000 ppm exposure in rabbits is 190,000 ppm and was utilized for a risk assessment. In addition, potential after-market manufacturers and the PMN submitter also provided additional information on the previously submitted exposure study that was conducted quantifying the exposures for durations shorter than 30 minutes and data on exposures from use of certain specified fittings. The test conditions demonstrated a highest 30-minute TWA exposure of 1,789 ppm. Based on the newly submitted data, EPA calculated the ratio of the level of exposure in rabbits that did not cause any effects with the highest measured TWA exposure. The calculated ratio is 106, which EPA considers protective of human health. The detailed risk assessment is contained in the public docket. Based on this new assessment, EPA proposes to find that use of the PMN substance by consumers to recharge air conditioning systems in vehicles originally charged with the refrigerant by the motor vehicle original equipment manufacturer (OEM) no longer meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b). Based on this proposed finding, EPA is proposing to modify the SNUR by eliminating the requirement to submit a notice prior to the manufacture and processing for the specified consumer use of the PMN substance.
        In addition, EPA is proposing to clarify the language in the regulatory text to more clearly communicate that manufacture and processing for use as a refrigerant in motor vehicle air conditioning systems in new passenger cars and vehicles as reported in the original PMN is not a significant new use. The current regulatory text identifies the significant new use by reference to 40 CFR 721.80(j), which refers to any “use other than” a use described in the premanufacture notice and then uses a parenthetical to more specifically identify the significant new use, beginning with “use other than.” However, using the language “use other than” when referring to a regulatory provision which begins with “use other than” can be confusing. As a result, EPA is proposing to clarify the regulatory text by simply identifying the significant new use as use other than as a refrigerant in motor vehicle air conditioning systems in new passenger cars and vehicles (i.e., as defined in 40 CFR 82.32 (c) and (d). The docket established for this proposed amendment to the SNUR is available under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0918.

          CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.10182.
        B. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?
        Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to determine that a use of a chemical substance is a “significant new use.” EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all relevant factors, including the TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors, listed in Unit III. of this document. Once EPA determines that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use, TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B) and 40 CFR part 721 requires persons to submit a significant new use notice (SNUN) to EPA at least 90 days before they manufacture (including import) or process the chemical substance for that use. Persons who must report are described in §  721.5.
        EPA may respond to SNUNs by, among other things, issuing or modifying a TSCA section 5(e) consent order and/or amending the SNUR promulgated under TSCA section 5(a)(2). Amendment of the SNUR will often be necessary to allow persons other than the SNUN submitter to engage in the newly authorized use(s), because even after a person submits a SNUN and the review period expires, other persons still must submit a SNUN before engaging in the significant new use.
        III. Significant New Use Determination
        Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA states that EPA's determination that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use must be made after consideration of all relevant factors, including:
        • The projected volume of manufacturing and processing of a chemical substance.
        • The extent to which a use changes the type or form of exposure to human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.
        • The extent to which a use increases the magnitude and duration of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.

        • The reasonably anticipated manner and methods of manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal of a chemical substance.

        In addition to these factors enumerated in TSCA section 5(a)(2), the statute authorizes EPA to consider any other relevant factors.
        To determine that consumer use in the recharge of motor vehicle air conditioning systems originally charged with the PMN substance by the motor vehicle OEM is not a significant new use of the chemical substance identified as 1-Propene, 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-(PMN P-07-601), EPA considered relevant information about the toxicity of the chemical substance, likely human exposures and environmental releases associated with this chemical use, taking into consideration the four bulleted TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors listed in this unit.
        IV. Rationale for the Proposed Rule

        During review of PMN P-07-601, the chemical substance identified as 1-Propene, 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-, EPA determined that one or more of the criteria of concern established at § 721.170 were met and regulation under section 5(a)(2) of TSCA was warranted. The basis for such findings is outlined in Unit II. of this document and in the Federal Register document of June 26, 1990 (55 FR 26102). Based on these findings, a SNUR was promulgated pursuant to §  721.170.
        After the review of new test data and information subsequent to issuance of the SNUR (see Unit II.), and consideration of the factors included in TSCA section 5(a)(2) (see Unit III.), EPA proposes to find that the concern criteria in § 721.170(b), are no longer met for the consumer use in the recharge of motor vehicle air conditioning systems originally charged with the PMN substance by the motor vehicle OEM.
        V. Economic Analysis
        EPA evaluated the potential costs of establishing SNUN requirements for potential manufacturers, importers, and processors of the chemical substances during the development of the direct final rule. The Agency's complete Economic Analysis is available in the docket under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0918. This proposal will not add to the costs identified in that analysis as it would, if finalized, relieve an existing notification requirement for certain manufacturers and processors.
        VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
        A. Executive Order 12866

        This proposed rule would modify a SNUR for a chemical substance that is the subject of a PMN. 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).
        B. Paperwork Reduction Act

        According to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., an Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and included on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. This listing of the OMB control numbers and their subsequent codification in the CFR satisfies the display requirements of PRA and OMB's implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320.
        This proposed rule would, if finalized, relieve an existing notification requirement for certain manufacturers and processors. The information collection requirements related to this action have already been approved by OMB pursuant to PRA under OMB control number 2070-0012 (EPA ICR No. 574). This action would not impose any burden requiring additional OMB approval. If an entity were to submit a SNUN to the Agency under the existing SNUR, the annual burden is estimated to average between 30 and 170 hours per response. This burden estimate includes the time needed to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain the data needed, and complete, review, and submit the required SNUN.
        Send any comments about the accuracy of the burden estimate, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques, to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, Office of Environmental Information (2822T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. Please remember to include the OMB control number in any correspondence, but do not submit any completed forms to this address.
        C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

        On February 18, 2012, EPA certified pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), that promulgation of a SNUR does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities where the following are true:
        1. A significant number of SNUNs would not be submitted by small entities in response to the SNUR.
        2. The SNUN submitted by any small entity would not cost significantly more than $8,300.
        A copy of that certification is available in the docket for this rule.
        This rule is within the scope of the February 18, 2012 certification. Based on the Economic Analysis discussed in Unit V. and EPA's experience promulgating SNURs (discussed in the certification), EPA believes that the following are true:
        • A significant number of SNUNs would not be submitted by small entities in response to the SNUR amendment.
        • Submission of the SNUN would not cost any small entity significantly more than $8,300. Therefore, the promulgation of the SNUR amendment would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
        Based on EPA's experience with proposing and finalizing SNURs, State, local, and Tribal governments have not been impacted by these rulemakings, and EPA does not have any reason to believe that any State, local, or Tribal government would be impacted by this proposed rule. As such, EPA has determined that this proposed rule would not impose any enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or otherwise have any effect on small governments subject to the requirements of sections 202, 203, 204, or 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4).
        E. Executive Order 13132

        This action would not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
        F. Executive Order 13175

        This proposed rule would not have Tribal implications because it is not expected to have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes. This proposed rule would not significantly nor uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal governments, nor would it involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this proposed rule.
        G. Executive Order 13045

        This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because this is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and this action does not address environmental health or safety risks disproportionately affecting children.
        H. Executive Order 13211

        This proposed rule 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), because this action is not expected to affect energy supply, distribution, or use and because this action is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
        I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
        In addition, since this action does not involve any technical standards, section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), does not apply to this action.
        J. Executive Order 12898

        This action does not entail special considerations of environmental justice related issues as delineated by Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR7629, February 16, 1994).

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 721
          Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: May 22, 2013.
          Maria J. Doa,
          Director, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

        Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 721 be amended as follows:

          PART 721—[AMENDED]

        1. The authority citation for part 721 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and 2625(c).

        2. In §  721.10182, revise paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2)(i) to read as follows:

          § 721.10182
          1-Propene, 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-.
          (a) * * * (1) The chemical substance identified as 1-propene, 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro- (PMN P- 07-601; CAS No. 754-12-1) is subject to reporting under this section for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
          (2) * * *
          (i) Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities. A significant new use is use other than as a refrigerant in motor vehicle air conditioning systems in new passenger cars and vehicles (i.e., as defined in 40 CFR 82.32 (c) and (d)); §  721.80(m) (commercial use other than in passenger cars and vehicles in which the charging of motor vehicle air conditioning systems with the PMN substance was done by the motor vehicle original equipment manufacturer (OEM); §  721.80(o) (use in consumer products other than products used to recharge the motor vehicle air conditioning systems in passenger cars and vehicles in which the charging of motor vehicle air conditioning systems with the PMN substance was done by the motor vehicle OEM).

      [FR Doc. 2013-12779 Filed 5-30-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 387
        [Docket No. FHWA-1997-2923]
        RIN 2126-AA82 (Formerly RIN 2126-AA28)
        Qualifications of Motor Carriers To Self-Insure Their Operations and Fees To Support the Approval and Compliance Process

          AGENCY:
          Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); withdrawal.

          SUMMARY:
          This notice is a withdrawal of a proposed rule under RIN 2126-AA28, which was inadvertently deleted from a prior agenda. The 1999 NPRM requested comments on the financial security and collateral requirements of self-insured motor carriers and fees associated with self-insurance. Section 103 of the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995 (ICCTA) directed the Secretary to create a single, on-line Federal system to replace four existing DOT and former ICC systems—one of those being the financial responsibility information system. Because self-insurance is an aspect of carrier financial responsibility, the agency has decided to withdraw the 1999 NPRM and has proposed amendments to the self-insurance regulations within the context of the financial reporting requirements being proposed under a new Unified Registration System and announced in a separate NPRM.

          DATES:
          The NPRM published on May 5, 1999, at 64 FR 24123 is withdrawn as of October 20, 2005.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Mr. Robert F. Schultz, Jr., Driver and Carrier Operations Division, (202) 366-4001, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        Section 104(h) of the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995 [Pub. L. 104-88, December 29, 1995, 109 Stat. 888] (ICCTA) directed the Secretary to continue to enforce the rules and regulations of the former ICC, which were in effect on July 1, 1995, governing qualifications for approval of a motor carrier as a self-insurer, until the Secretary deemed it in the public interest to revise those rules. Section 104(h) also specified that any revised rulemakings regarding self-insurance must provide for the continuing ability of motor carriers to obtain self-insurance authorizations, and the continued qualification of all carriers conducting self-insured operations pursuant to grants issued by the ICC or the Secretary. On September 23, 1997, the predecessor agency to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)—the Federal Highway Administration, Office of Motor Carriers—announced its intention to revise the self-insurance regulations in an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) (62 FR 49654). (The Federal Highway Administration, Office of Motor Carriers, became FMCSA on January 1, 2000, pursuant to the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748 (December 9, 1999).) The public was invited to comment on a proposal to examine the sufficiency of the existing requirements for self-insurance authorizations, as well as the need for additional fees for functions performed in addition to the processing of the initial application. More specifically, the agency announced that it was considering the need for fees to cover costs associated with processing multi-carrier applications and alterations to self-insurance authorizations, and for a monitoring fee to cover costs related to compliance responsibilities. The ANPRM solicited comments on the merits of continuing the self-insurance program and whether congressional action should be proposed to terminate the authorizations.
        On May 5, 1999, the agency proposed procedural changes to the self-insurance process for for-hire motor carriers (66 FR 24123). Specifically, the agency would reevaluate the security and collateral requirements of any self-insured carrier that fails to generate from operations, after payment of all expenses except annual self-insurance claims expenses, twice the level of cash needed to pay the self-insurance claims. An additional application fee would be assessed to cover carrier requests for modifications and alternations to self-insurance authorizations that require a reevaluation of the carrier's financial condition. Because the agency was able to process the basic first-time self-insurance applications for less than it was currently charging, the fee for processing the initial application would be reduced from $4,200 to $3,000 for an economic cost savings. Finally, the NPRM proposed implementing additional procedures necessary for motor carriers to establish billing accounts to pay all insurance-related fees required by the agency. The proposal included a schedule of filing fees and general instructions regarding payment.

        Section 103 of ICCTA amended Section IV of title 49, United States Code by adding a new sec. 13908. Section 13908 directs the Secretary to issue regulations to replace four systems with a “single, on-line, Federal system.” The financial responsibility information system under 49 U.S.C. 13906 is one of the four systems to be merged under the unified system. Because the issue of self-insurance falls under the umbrella of financial responsibility, the agency has decided to withdraw the 1999 NPRM and discuss its proposals within the context of the Unified Registration System (URS) NPRM (published in the May 19, 2005, Federal Register at 70 FR 28989.). Comments to the 1999 NPRM also are addressed in the URS NPRM.
        The 1999 self-insurance NPRM published at 66 FR 24123 on May 5, 1999 is withdrawn, and DOT docket FMCSA-1997-2923 is closed. Members of the public who are interested in the issues associated with motor carrier self-insurance are directed to the discussion and proposals relating to self-insurance published in the URS NPRM and DOT Docket Number FMCSA-1997-2349.

          Issued on: October 11, 2005.
          Annette M. Sandberg,
          Administrator.

      [FR Doc. 05-20718 Filed 10-19-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 200428-0123]
        RIN 0648-BJ61
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Bluefish Fishery; Revised 2020 and Projected 2021 Specifications and Recreational Management Measures

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes revised specifications for the 2020 Atlantic bluefish fishery and projected specifications for fishing year 2021, as recommended by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. This action is necessary to establish allowable harvest levels and other management measures to prevent overfishing, consistent with the most recent scientific information. This action also informs the public of the proposed fishery specifications and provides an opportunity for comment.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by May 26, 2020.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2020-0020, by either of the following methods:

            Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal.
          1. Go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=NOAA-NMFS-2020-0020,

          2. Click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and
          3. Enter or attach your comments.

          or

            Mail: Submit written comments to Michael Pentony, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, Greater Atlantic Region, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA, 01930-2276. Mark the outside of the envelope: “Comments on the Proposed Rule for Bluefish Specifications and Recreational Management Measures.”

            Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

          The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council prepared a draft environmental assessment (EA) for this action that describes the proposed measures and other considered alternatives. The EA also provides an economic analysis, as well as an analysis of the biological, economic, and social impacts of the proposed measures and other considered alternatives. Copies of the specifications document, including the EA and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), are available on request from Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 North State Street, Dover, DE 19901. These documents are also accessible via the internet at http://www.mafmc.org.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Cynthia Ferrio, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9180.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission jointly manage the Atlantic Bluefish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The FMP requires the specification of the acceptable biological catch (ABC), annual catch limit (ACL), annual catch targets (ACT), commercial quota, recreational harvest limit, and other management measures for up to 3 years at a time. This action proposes specifications and recreational management measures for the 2020 and 2021 bluefish fishery.

        The August 2019 bluefish operational stock assessment incorporated revised Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) estimates into its analyses and reference points. This assessment determined that the bluefish stock is overfished but not subject to overfishing. Although the overall biomass of the stock increased after incorporating revised MRIP data, the biomass threshold also nearly doubled, resulting in the overfished determination. The Council received formal notification of the stock status change on November 12, 2019, and is developing a rebuilding plan to be implemented by 2022. The final assessment results became available in late 2019, and additional analysis was required to incorporate the new MRIP data into development of revised catch limits. To ensure catch limits would be in place for the start of the fishing year on January 1, 2020, NMFS published interim 2020 specifications (84 FR 54041; October 9, 2019) until new measures could be developed. However, these interim catch limits and measures were developed before the revised MRIP data, assessment information, and new stock status were available. The interim specifications are substantially more liberal than what the best available science indicates is necessary to constrain catch in 2020 and prevent overfishing. This action would revise the 2020 specifications to reflect the assessment results, and project similar specifications for 2021.
        On September 9, 2019, the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) reviewed the operational assessment, and recommended a reduced ABC for bluefish using the Council's risk policy with an overfishing limit coefficient of variation (CV) equal to 100 percent due to some increased uncertainty with the new MRIP data. In previous years, the SSC used a less conservative 60-percent CV because there was more confidence in the data. The Bluefish Monitoring Committee met on September 18, 2019, to develop and recommend full specifications based on the SSC's ABC recommendation. The Bluefish FMP has a prescriptive process for deriving specifications from the ABC. The FMP sets the ACL equal to the ABC, and the ACL is allocated 17 percent to the commercial ACT and 83 percent to the recreational ACT. The most recent fishing year discards from each sector are subtracted from each applicable ACT to calculate the sector's total allowable landings (TAL). Commercial discards are assumed to be negligible, and recreational discards are estimated from MRIP data. If the recreational fishery is not projected to land its harvest limit, then quota may be transferred from the recreational to the commercial sector. The maximum amount that may be transferred can result in a commercial quota of up to 10.5 million lb (4,763 mt). The final commercial quota is then allocated to the coastal states from Maine to Florida based on percent shares specified in the FMP.
        The Council and the Commission's Bluefish Board jointly approved catch specifications for fishing years 2020 and 2021 at a joint meeting in October 2019, based on the assessment and recommendations from the SSC and Monitoring Committee. In these revised specifications, the Council recommended a 25-percent reduction in the overall ABC and ACL in comparison to the current interim 2020 values, a 25-percent reduction in initial commercial quota, and an 18-percent reduction in the recreational harvest limit (RHL). Because recreational landings are expected to fully achieve the RHL, no sector transfer to the commercial fishery is permitted. Thus, these recommended specifications would reduce the final commercial quota a total of a 64-percent from the reduced commercial quota and the lack of a quota transfer from the recreational sector. Given the substantial difference in expected 2020 recreational harvest compared to the reduced 2020 RHL, the Council and Board chose to delay development of recreational management measures until December 2019. This delay was intended to provide additional time to develop and analyze measures necessary to constrain recreational catch to the recommended 2020 RHL.
        Based on projected recreational landings for the 2020 bluefish fishery (13.27 million lb; 6,020 mt), the Monitoring Committee determined that a 28.65-percent reduction in recreational harvest is necessary to constrain catch to the new RHL of 9.48 million lb (4,301 mt). The Council and Board took final action in December 2019 to recommend a mode-specific reduction in the daily recreational bag limit from 15 to 3 fish per person for private anglers and to 5 fish per person for for-hire (party/charter) vessels. No changes were recommended to recreational seasons or size limits because there is substantial variability in seasonal availability and recreational fish sizes taken from Florida to Maine. The change in bag limit is expected to sufficiently constrain recreational catch to the 9.48 million-lb (6,020-mt) RHL when applied to the entire fishing year. In an effort to prevent overfishing in the early months of the fishing year (which began on January 1, 2020), NMFS implemented interim measures to temporarily establish this reduced bag limit (85 FR 11863; February 28, 2020). However, this proposed action is necessary to permanently implement these recreational measures.
        Proposed Specifications
        This action proposes the Council's recommendations for revised 2020 and projected 2021 bluefish catch specifications, as well as the recreational management measures to constrain harvest the new limits. A comparison of the interim 2020 and the proposed revised 2020-21 specifications is summarized below in Table 1.

          Table 1—Comparison of Current 2020 and Proposed 2020-21 Bluefish Specifications

            Interim 2020(current)

            Metric tons
            Million lb
            Revised 2020-2021(proposed)

            Million lb
            Metric tons
            Percent change

            Overfishing Limit
            * 27.97
            12,688
            2020: 32.972021: 37.98

            2020: 14,9552021: 17,227

            2020: 182021: 36

            ABC = ACL
            21.81
            9,895
            16.28
            7,385
            −25

            Commercial ACT
            3.71
            1,682
            2.77
            1,255
            −25

            Recreational ACT
            18.11
            8,213
            13.51
            6,130
            −25

            Recreational Discards †
            2.49
            1,129
            4.03
            1,829
            +162

            Commercial TAL
            3.71
            1,682
            2.77
            1,255
            −25

            Recreational TAL
            15.62
            7,085
            9.48
            4,301
            −39

            Sector Transfer
            4.00
            1,814
            0.00
            0
            −100

            Commercial Quota
            7.71
            3,497
            2.77
            1,255
            −64

            RHL
            11.62
            5,271
            9.48
            4,301
            −18

            * This value was incorrectly published as 29.97 million pounds in the interim final specifications (84 FR 54041; October 9, 2019). This was the result of an inadvertent conversion error, and the value in metric tons was correct. This pound value was published correctly in the prior 2019 specifications rule (84 FR 8826; March 12, 2019), and this error has not directly affected bluefish fishery operations or stock status in any way.
          † The terminal year of MRIP data used to project discard estimates for the interim (current) specifications was 2017, and the terminal year used to project the discards for the revised (proposed) specifications was 2018.

        Table 2 provides the proposed commercial state allocations based on the Council-recommended coastwide commercial quota for 2020 and 2021. No states exceeded their state allocated quota in 2019; therefore, no accountability measures are necessary for the 2020 commercial fishery.

          Table 2—Proposed 2020-21 Bluefish State Commercial Quota Allocations

            State
            Percentshare

            Proposedquota
              (lb)

            Proposedquota
              (kg)

            Maine
            0.67
            18,496
            8,388

            New Hampshire
            0.41
            11,468
            5,201

            Massachusetts
            6.72
            185,838
            84,280

            Rhode Island
            6.81
            188,366
            85,427

            Connecticut
            1.27
            35,036
            15,889

            New York
            10.39
            287,335
            130,311

            New Jersey
            14.82
            409,934
            185,911

            Delaware
            1.88
            51,966
            23,567

            Maryland
            3.00
            83,054
            37,666

            Virginia
            11.88
            328,682
            149,062

            North Carolina
            32.06
            887,058
            402,294

            South Carolina
            0.04
            974
            442

            Georgia
            0.01
            263
            119

            Florida
            10.06
            278,332
            126,228

            Total
            100.00
            2,766,801
            1,254,785

        As previously mentioned, this action would also change the recreational management measures by reducing the Federal bluefish recreational daily bag limit from 15 to 3 fish per person for private anglers and to 5 fish per person for for-hire (charter/party) vessels. All other Federal management measures, including commercial management measures, and recreational season (open all year) and minimum fish size (none), would remain unchanged.
        The Council will review the specifications for fishing year 2021 to determine if any changes need to be made prior to their implementation. Changes may occur if 2020 quota overages trigger accountability measures, or if new stock information results in changes to the ABC recommendations. NMFS will publish a notice prior to or early in 2021 to confirm or announce any necessary changes. The Council is developing a rebuilding plan for the bluefish stock that will be implemented by 2022. NMFS expects the rebuilding plan to inform development of the next set of specifications beginning in 2022.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Atlantic Bluefish FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        The Council reviewed the proposed regulations for this action and deemed them necessary and appropriate to implement consistent with section 303(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        This proposed rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

        The Mid-Atlantic Council prepared a draft EA for this action that analyzes the impacts of this proposed rule. The EA includes an IRFA, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), which is supplemented by information contained in the preamble of this proposed rule. The IRFA was prepared to examine the economic impact of this proposed rule, if adopted, on small business entities, as well as the possible economic impact of the other alternatives presented in the EA/specifications document. A copy of the detailed RFA analysis is available from the Council (see ADDRESSES). A summary of the 2020-2021 bluefish specifications IRFA analysis follows.
        Description of the Reasons Why Action by the Agency Is Being Considered, and the Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, This Proposed Rule
        This action is taken under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and regulations at 50 CFR part 648. This proposed rule revises 2020 catch limits and recreational management measures, and projects 2021 specifications for the Atlantic bluefish fishery. A complete description of the action, why it is being considered, and its legal basis are contained in the draft EA and in this rule's preamble, and are not repeated here.
        Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which This Proposed Rule Would Apply

        This proposed rule affects those small entities engaged in commercial fishing operations in the Atlantic bluefish fishery (those with commercial bluefish permits), and those with Federal party/charter recreational permits for bluefish. Private recreational anglers are not considered “entities” under the RFA, thus economic impacts on private anglers are not considered here. For the purposes of the RFA analysis, the ownership entities (or firms), not the individual vessels, are considered to be the regulated entities. Ownership entities are defined as those entities or firms with common ownership personnel as listed on the permit application. Because of this, some vessels with bluefish permits may be considered to be part of the same firm because they may have the same owners. To identify these small and large firms, vessel ownership data from the permit database were grouped according to common owners and sorted by size. In terms of RFA, a business primarily engaged in commercial fishing is classified as a small business if it has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million, for all its affiliated operations worldwide. A business primarily engaged in for-hire (party/charter) fishing is classified as small business if it has combined annual receipts not in excess of $8 million.

        In the commercial fishery, 735 firms reported commercial bluefish revenue from 2016-2018. According to the vessel ownership database, based on 2018 revenues, 728 of those 735 total firms are categorized as small businesses, and 7 are categorized as large businesses. For the recreational for-hire (party/charter) fishery, 389 affiliate firms reported revenue from recreational fishing from 2016-2018. All 389 of those firms are categorized as small businesses based on their 2018 revenues. It is not possible to derive what proportion of the overall revenues for these for-hire firms came from fishing activities for an individual species. Nevertheless, given the popularity of bluefish as a recreational species in the Mid-Atlantic and New England, revenues generated from this species are likely somewhat important for many of these firms at certain times of the year. The 3-year average (2016-2018) combined gross receipts (all for-hire fishing activity combined) for these small entities was $52,156,152, ranging from less than $10,000 for 119 entities (lowest value $124) to over $1,000,000 for 8 entities (highest value $2.9 million).
        Description of the Projected Reporting, Record-Keeping, and Other Compliance Requirements of This Proposed Rule
        There are no new reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements contained in this proposed rule, or any of the alternatives considered for this action.
        Federal Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With This Proposed Rule
        NMFS is not aware of any relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule.
        Description of Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Action Which Accomplish the Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes and Which Minimize Any Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities

        The measures proposed revise 2020 and outline projected 2021 catch specifications and recreational management measures for the bluefish fishery based on the most recent stock assessment and the application of the Council's Risk Policy to prevent overfishing. Revenues in 2020 and 2021 are uncertain and will depend not only on the quota, but also on availability of bluefish, market factors (e.g., price of bluefish compared to alternative species), weather, and other factors. These proposed specifications would decrease the coastwide commercial quota by 64 percent, and the recreational harvest limit by 18 percent. Although these are substantial reductions, especially for the commercial fishery due to the lack of quota transfer from the recreational sector, commercial bluefish entities may not be substantially negatively impacted. Preliminary reports indicate that the commercial bluefish fishery only landed 2.61 million lb (1,185 mt) in 2019, which is below the proposed commercial quota of 2.77 million lb (1,255 mt). Therefore, the commercial fishery overall is not expected to experience substantial negative impacts from the quota reduction. However, commercial entities in certain states that more actively target bluefish may still be affected as the allocated state quotas proportionately decrease. Compared to the average receipts for 2016-2018, the proposed 2020-2021 commercial quotas are expected to result in an overall revenue reduction of 0.38 percent and 0.01 percent for small and large entities.
        In the recreational fishery (for-hire or party/charter entities), impacts to entities are more likely to be driven by the change in recreational management measures than the reduction in RHL. In the development of the proposed measures, a mode-specific bag limit was chosen specifically to mitigate the negative impacts on for-hire entities fishing for bluefish. To achieve the required reduction in the RHL, these measures propose a reduction in the daily recreational bag limit from 15 to 3 fish per person for private anglers and to 5 fish per person for for-hire (charter/party) vessels. Because for-hire vessels are responsible for less than 5 percent of overall bluefish recreational catch, but the bag limit can affect demand for mixed-catch trips and general business revenues, the proposed action allowed the for-hire mode two additional fish per-person than the initially determined 3-fish bag limit for the entire recreational fishery. Even with this extra allowance, it can be difficult to predict with certainty how the preferred alternative will affect demand for party/charter boat trips. Anglers may shift effort away from species with more restrictive measures towards those with more liberal measures, resulting in little change in overall fishing effort or demand for party/charter trips where multiple species can be caught together.
        The Council also considered maintaining status quo specifications, where the same catch limits and management measures from 2019 would continue through 2020 and beyond; and a most-restrictive alternative, which would further reduce catch limits for a 64-percent reduction in commercial quota and a 69-percent reduction in the RHL. Maintaining status quo would be expected to maintain revenues in the short term, but would likely have negative long term impacts due to the increased risk of overfishing and low contribution to stock health and recovery. The most-restrictive alternative is expected to have similar impacts as the preferred alternative, but is more drastic in the short term and may have a more substantial negative short term impact on affected entities.
        The Council recommended the specifications in this proposed rule over the other two alternatives to satisfy the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements to ensure fish stocks are not subject to overfishing, while minimizing the impact on the industry (including small entities) and private anglers. This also increases the likelihood that the fishery will remain a viable source of fishing revenues for bluefish fishing entities in the long term, and makes it the better sustainable economic choice. The status quo alternative was not recommended by the Council because it would exceed the catch level recommendations of the Council's SSC, put the bluefish stock at risk of overfishing, and would be inconsistent with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The most restrictive alternative was not recommended because it would impose substantial restrictions on the fishery too quickly without time to adjust, creating a more negative impact than the preferred alternative. Overall, the proposed specifications are expected to have slightly negative (short-term) to slightly positive (long-term) impacts on the affected entities; which could vary depending on the firm's reliance on bluefish as a target species. NMFS agrees with the Council's IRFA analysis and rationale for recommending these catch limits. As such, NMFS is proposing to implement the Council's preferred specifications and management measures, as presented in this proposed rule's preamble.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
          Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: April 29, 2020.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

        1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

        2. In § 648.164,
        a. Remove paragraphs (c) and (d),
        b. Lift the suspension on paragraphs (a) and (b), and
        c. Revise paragraphs (a) and (b).
        The revisions read as follows:

          § 648.164
          Bluefish possession restrictions.
          (a) Recreational possession limits. Any person fishing from a vessel in the EEZ that is not fishing under a bluefish commercial permit shall observe the applicable recreational possession limit. The owner, operator, and crew of a charter or party boat issued a bluefish commercial permit are not subject to the recreational possession limit when not carrying passengers for hire and when the crew size does not exceed five for a party boat and three for a charter boat.
          (1) Private recreational vessels. Any person fishing from a vessel that is not fishing under a bluefish commercial or charter/party vessel permit issued pursuant to § 648.4(a)(8), may land up to three bluefish per day.
          (2) For-hire vessels. Anglers fishing onboard a for-hire vessel under a bluefish charter/party vessel permit issued pursuant to § 648.4(a)(8), may land up to five bluefish per person per day.
          (b) Pooling Catch. Bluefish harvested by vessels subject to the possession limit with more than one person on board may be pooled in one or more containers. Compliance with the daily possession limit will be determined by dividing the number of bluefish on board by the number of persons on board, other than the captain and the crew. If there is a violation of the possession limit on board a vessel carrying more than one person, the violation shall be deemed to have been committed by the owner and operator of the vessel.

      [FR Doc. 2020-09572 Filed 5-8-20; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
        Agricultural Marketing Service
        7 CFR Part 932
        [Doc. No. AMS-SC-20-0012; SC20-932-2 PR]
        Olives Grown in California; Decreased Assessment Rate

          AGENCY:
          Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          This proposed rule would implement a recommendation from the California Olive Committee (Committee) to decrease the assessment rate established for the 2020 fiscal year and subsequent fiscal years. The proposed assessment rate would remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by April 3, 2020.

          ADDRESSES:

          Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this proposed rule. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax: (202) 720-8938; or internet: http://www.regulations.gov. Comments should reference the document number and the date and page number of this issue of the Federal Register and will be available for public inspection in the Office of the Docket Clerk during regular business hours, or can be viewed at: http://www.regulations.gov. All comments submitted in response to this proposed rule will be included in the record and will be made available to the public. Please be advised that the identity of the individuals or entities submitting the comments will be made public on the internet at the address provided above.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Kathie Notoro, Marketing Specialist, or Terry Vawter, Regional Director, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559) 538-1672, Fax: (559) 487-5906, or Email: Kathie.Notoro@usda.gov or Terry.Vawter@usda.gov.

          Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Richard Lower, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or Email: Richard.Lower@usda.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, proposes an amendment to regulations issued to carry out a marketing order as defined in 7 CFR 900.2(j). This proposed rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 932, as amended (7 CFR part 932), regulating the handling of olives grown in California. Part 932 (referred to as the “Order”) is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The Committee locally administers the Order and is comprised of producers and handlers of olives operating within the area of production, and a public member.
        The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this proposed rule in conformance with Executive Orders 13563 and 13175. This proposed rule falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order 12866 review. Additionally, because this proposed rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action, it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771.
        See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017, titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).
        This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the Order now in effect, California olive handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the Order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate would be applicable to all assessable olives beginning on January 1, 2020, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.
        The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
        This proposed rule would decrease the assessment rate from $44.00 per ton of assessed olives, the rate that was established for the 2018-19 and subsequent fiscal years, to $15.00 per ton of assessed olives for the 2020 and subsequent fiscal years. The proposed lower rate is the result of a significantly higher crop size, and the need to cover Committee expenses.
        The Order provides authority for the Committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members are familiar with the Committee's needs and with the costs of goods and services in their local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.

        The Committee met on December 5, 2019, and unanimously recommended 2020 expenditures of $1,035,406, and an assessment rate of $24.00 per ton of assessed olives. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were $1,628,923. However, on December 6, 2019, the Committee staff received an email requesting that the assessment rate be lower than the unanimously agreed to rate of $24.00. The Committee met again by conference call on January 22, 2020, to discuss the possibility of a lower assessment rate. During the conference call, a handler and some producers stated they would be willing to pay up to $100.00 per ton during the next alternate low bearing year, if the crop volume tonnage drops below what is necessary to fund the Committee's activities. After further Committee discussions, an assessment rate of $15.00 per ton of assessed olives was recommended. The proposed assessment rate of $15.00 is $29.00 lower than the rate currently in effect. Producer receipts show a yield of 81,689 tons of assessable olives from the 2019 crop year. This is substantially more than the 2018 crop year, which yielded 17,953 tons of assessable olives. The 2020 fiscal year assessment rate decrease is appropriate to ensure the Committee has enough revenue to fund the recommended 2020 budgeted expenditures while ensuring the funds in the financial reserve would be kept within the maximum permitted by § 932.40.
        The Order has a fiscal year and a crop year that are independent of each other. The crop year is a 12-month period that begins on August 1 of each year and ends on July 31 of the following year. The fiscal year is the 12-month period that begins on January 1 and ends on December 31 of each year. Olives are an alternate-bearing crop, with a small crop followed by a large crop. For this assessment rate proposed rule, the actual 2019 crop year receipts are used to determine the assessment rate for the 2020 fiscal year.
        The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2020 fiscal year includes $631,300 for program administration, $123,500 for marketing activities, $225,606 for research, and $55,000 for inspection equipment. Budgeted expenses for these items during the 2019 fiscal year were $713,900 for program administration, $513,500 for marketing activities, $343,523 for research, and $58,000 inspection equipment.
        The assessment rate recommended by the Committee resulted from consideration of anticipated fiscal year expenses, actual olive tonnage received by handlers during the 2019 crop year, and the amount in the Committee's financial reserve. Income derived from handler assessments, along with interest income and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, will be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. Funds in the reserve will be kept within the maximum permitted by the Order of approximately one fiscal year's expenses.
        The assessment rate proposed in this rule would continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information.
        Although this assessment rate would be in effect for an indefinite period, the Committee would continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal year to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA would evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking would be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's budget for subsequent fiscal years would be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.
        Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
        Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this proposed rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
        The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.
        There are approximately 800 producers of olives in the production area and two handlers subject to regulation under the Order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts less than $1,000,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $30,000,000 (13 CFR 121.201).
        Based upon National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) information as of June 2019, the average price to producers for the 2019 crop year was $766.00 per ton, and total assessable volume for the 2019 crop year was 81,689 tons. Based on production, price paid to producers, and the total number of California olive producers, the average annual producer revenue is less than $1,000,000 ($766.00 times 81,689 tons equals $62,573,774 divided by 800 producers equals an average annual producer revenue of $78,217.22). Thus, the majority of olive producers may be classified as small entities. Both handlers may be classified as large entities under the SBA's definitions because their annual receipts are greater than $30,000,000.
        This proposal would decrease the assessment rate collected from handlers for the 2020 and subsequent fiscal years from $44.00 to $15.00 per ton of assessable olives. The Committee unanimously recommended 2020 expenditures of $1,035,406 and an assessment rate of $15.00 per ton of assessable olives. The recommended assessment rate of $15.00 is $29.00 lower than the 2019 rate. The quantity of assessable olives for the 2020 Fiscal year is 81,689 tons. Thus, the $15.00 rate should provide $1,225,335 in assessment revenue. The lower assessment rate is proposed because annual receipts for the 2019 crop year are 81,689 tons compared to 17,953 tons for the 2018 crop year. Olives are an alternate-bearing crop, with a small crop followed by a large crop. Income derived from the $15.00 per ton assessment rate, along with funds from the authorized reserve and interest income, should be adequate to meet this fiscal year's expenses.
        The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2020 fiscal year include $631,300 for program administration, $123,500 for marketing activities, $225,606 for research, and $55,000 for inspection equipment. Budgeted expenses for these items during the 2019 fiscal year were $713,900 for program administration, $513,500 for marketing activities, $343,523 for research, and $58,000 for inspection equipment. The Committee deliberated on many of the expenses, weighed the relative value of various programs or projects, and decreased its expenses for marketing and research activities.

        Prior to arriving at this budget and assessment rate, the Committee considered information from various sources including the Committee's Executive, Marketing, Inspection, and Research Subcommittees. Alternate expenditure levels were discussed by these groups, based upon the relative value of various projects to the olive industry and the increased olive production. The assessment rate of $15.00 per ton of assessable olives was derived by considering anticipated expenses, the high volume of assessable olives, and additional pertinent factors.
        A review of NASS information indicates that the average producer price for the 2019 crop year was $766.00 per ton. Therefore, utilizing the assessment rate of $15.00 per ton, the assessment revenue for the 2020 fiscal year as a percentage of total producer revenue would be approximately 0.02 percent.
        This proposed action would decrease the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. While assessments impose some additional costs on handlers, the costs are minimal and uniform on all handlers. Some of the additional costs may be passed on to producers. However, decreasing the assessment would reduce the burden on handlers and may reduce the burden on producers. The Committee's meetings were widely publicized throughout the production area. The olive industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meetings and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the December 5, 2019, meeting and the January 22, 2020, meetings were public meetings, and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Interested persons are invited to submit comments on this proposed rule, including the regulatory and information collection impacts of this action on small businesses.
        In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0178 Vegetable and Specialty Crops. No changes in those requirements are necessary as a result of this action. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
        This proposed rule would not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large California olive handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
        AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
        USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this action.

        A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/moa/small-businesses. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Richard Lower at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
        A 30-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposed rule.

          List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 932
          Marketing agreements, Olives, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

        For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 932 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 932—OLIVES GROWN IN CALIFORNIA

        1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 932 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           7 U.S.C. 601-674.

        2. Section 932.230 is revised to read as follows:

          § 932.230
           Assessment rate.
          On and after January 1, 2020, an assessment rate of $15.00 per ton is established for California olives.

          Dated: February 27, 2020.
          Bruce Summers,
          Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.

      [FR Doc. 2020-04369 Filed 3-3-20; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3410-02-P


        DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
        Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
        42 CFR Part 422
        [CMS-4185-N2]
        Medicare Program; Release of Data Underlying Risk Adjustment Data Validation Provisions

          AGENCY:
          Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; supplement.

          SUMMARY:
          This document announces the release of data underlying the proposed policies regarding the use of extrapolation in Medicare Advantage (MA) Risk Adjustment Data Validation (RADV) audits and the Fee-for-Service (FFS) Adjuster.

          DATES:
          The data announced in this supplement is available on March 1, 2019.

          ADDRESSES:

          The LDS DUA request forms and instructions are available via the CMS website at https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Files-for-Order/LimitedDataSets/. Additional documentation and data related to the RADV FFS Adjuster Study is posted on the Private Plans Team website at https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Monitoring-Programs/Medicare-Risk-Adjustment-Data-Validation-Program/Resources.html.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jonathan Smith, (410) 786-4671 or Joanne Davis, (410) 786-5127.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Background
        In the November 1, 2018 Federal Register (83 FR 54982), we published a proposed rule titled “Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Policy and Technical Changes to the Medicare Advantage (MA), Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit, Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE), Medicaid Fee-For-Service, and Medicaid Managed Care Programs for Years 2020 and 2021”. The proposed rule included preamble language and regulatory provisions regarding the proposed MA Risk Adjustment Data Validation (RADV) audit methodology, and the proposal not to apply a Fee-For-Service (FFS) Adjuster (83 FR 55037 through 55041 and 55077). Prior to the release of the proposed rule, we posted a FFS Adjuster Study on October 26, 2018.
        In the December 27, 2018 Federal Register (83 FR 66661), we published a document stating that we planned on releasing data underlying the FFS Adjuster Study and extending the comment period for the RADV provisions to April 30, 2019, in order to maximize the opportunity for the public to provide meaningful input to CMS.
        II. Provisions of the Supplement

        This document announces that data, underlying our proposal not to apply a RADV FFS Adjuster, is available to the public through the Office of Enterprise Data Analytics (OEDA). Persons or entities requesting the data must complete and submit a Limited Data Set (LDS) Data Use Agreement (DUA) along with the required fee to CMS. The LDS DUA request forms and instructions are available via the CMS website at https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Files-for-Order/LimitedDataSets/. Lastly, additional documentation and data related to the RADV FFS Adjuster Study is posted on the Private Plans Team website at https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Monitoring-Programs/Medicare-Risk-Adjustment-Data-Validation-Program/Resources.html.

        We are releasing these data so the public can both provide meaningful comments regarding the proposed RADV provisions in the November 2018 proposed rule (83 FR 55037 through 55041 and 55077) and generate information that will be useful to the agency's decision makers. Our ability to meaningfully evaluate and respond to comments may depend on the extent to which commenters disclose any methodologies, statistical analyses, audit findings, and other factors underlying the comments.
        III. Collection of Information Requirements

        This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

          Dated: February 28, 2019.
          Seema Verma,
          Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

      [FR Doc. 2019-04052 Filed 3-4-19; 11:15 am]
       BILLING CODE 4120-01-P