The Area Risk Protection Insurance (ARPI) Regulations in 7 CFR 407 were revised by a final rule published in the Federal Register on June 30, 2021 (86 FR 34606-34611). That final rule inadvertently failed to revise the applicable crop year in the introductory text of the ARPI policy. 2022 is the effective crop year. This document makes that correction.

Accordingly, 7 CFR part 407 is corrected by making the following correcting amendment:

On July 22, 2020, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking proposing a test to determine when a national bank or Federal savings association (bank) makes a loan and is the “true lender” (85 FR 44223). The OCC published the final rule, titled “National Banks and Federal Savings Associations as Lenders” and codified at 12 CFR 7.1031, in the Federal Register on October 30, 2020 (85 FR 68742). The final rule provided that a bank makes a loan if, as of the date of origination, it (1) is named as the lender in the loan agreement or (2) funds the loan. The final rule became effective on December 29, 2020.

The United States Senate passed a joint resolution (S.J. Res. 15) on May 11, 2021 disapproving of the rule under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ). The United States House of Representative passed S.J. Res. 15 on June 24, 2021. President Joseph R. Biden signed the joint resolution into law as Public Law 117-24 on June 30, 2021. Under the joint resolution and by operation of the CRA, the rule has no legal force or effect. Accordingly, the OCC is hereby removing 12 CFR 7.1031 from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

This action is not an exercise of the OCC's rulemaking authority under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because the OCC is not “formulating, amending, or repealing a rule” under 5 U.S.C. 551(5). Rather, the OCC is effectuating changes to the CFR to reflect what congressional action has already accomplished. Accordingly, the OCC is not soliciting comments on this action, nor is it delaying the effective date.

For the reasons set forth above, and pursuant to the CRA (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ) and Public Law 117-24, 135 Stat. 296, the OCC amends 12 CFR part 7 as follows:

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0273, dated December 9, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-0273) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A330-201, A330-202, A330-203, A330-223, A330-243, A330-301, A330-302, A330-303, A330-321, A330-322, A330-323, A330-341, A330-342, A330-343, A330-743L, A330-841, A330-941, A340-211, A340-212, A340-213, A340-311, A340-312, A340-313, A340-541, A340-542, A340-642, and A340-643 airplanes. Model A330-743L, A340-542, and A340-643 airplanes are not certificated by the FAA and are not included on the U.S. type certificate data sheet; this AD therefore does not include those airplanes in the applicability.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus SAS Model A330-200, -300, -800, and -900 series airplanes; and Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 8, 2021 (86 FR 13239). The NPRM was prompted by reports that certain oxygen supply solenoid valves are a potential source of increased flow resistance within the flightcrew oxygen system. The NPRM proposed to require a special detailed inspection (flow test) of certain solenoid valves, and replacement if necessary, as specified in EASA AD 2020-0273.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address increased flow resistance within the flightcrew oxygen system, which could lead to a reduced flow of oxygen supply to the flightcrew oxygen masks, and in combination with in-flight depressurization, smoke in the flight deck, or a smoke evacuation procedure, could lead to flightcrew hypoxia and loss of useful consciousness, resulting in loss of control of the airplane. See the MCAI for additional background information.

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

Delta Air Lines (DAL) asked that the FAA add a paragraph (h)(3) to the proposed AD which would allow operators to use the serial numbers identified in Safran Service Information Letter (SIL) SIL120, dated May 20, 2019, instead of the year of manufacture, to determine whether a solenoid valve is an affected part, as defined in EASA AD 2020-0273. DAL stated that the SIL contains the serial numbers and year of manufacture of affected solenoid valves.

The FAA agrees to clarify. EASA AD 2020-0273 does not specify how to determine whether a solenoid valve is an affected part. The FAA agrees that operators can use Safran SIL120 as an additional source of guidance for identification of the affected parts by the serial numbers. The FAA has added Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD stating that additional guidance for identification of affected parts can be found in Safran Service Information Letter SIL120, dated May 20, 2019.

DAL asked that the requirement to send any affected solenoid valves back to Zodiac for repair, in which is specified as “Required for Compliance” (RC) in the applicable service information identified in EASA AD 2020-0273 be excluded in the proposed AD. DAL stated that all affected parts must pass a flow test with no defects found prior to the next flight of the airplane after installation on the airplane.

The FAA agrees with the commenter for the reasons provided. The FAA has revised paragraph (i) of this AD to exclude the requirement to send any affected solenoid valve back to Zodiac for repair.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:

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

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

The FAA also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final rule.

EASA AD 2020-0273 describes procedures for doing a special detailed inspection (flow test) of certain solenoid valves by using the flightcrew oxygen masks and replacing any solenoid valve that fails the flow test with a serviceable part. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 112 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary replacement that would be required based on the results of any actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need replacement:

According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for affected operators. As a result, the FAA has included all known costs in the cost estimate.

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

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

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

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

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

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

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

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2021-0035, dated January 25, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0035) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A330-841 and -941 airplanes.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus SAS Model A330-841 and -941 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 10, 2021 (86 FR 24790). The NPRM was prompted by reports of missing or disbonded pressure seals on two TR translating cowls. The NPRM proposed to require a one-time inspection of each TR for damage, seal bonding rework, and replacement of translating cowl pressure seals if necessary, as specified in EASA AD 2021-0035.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address missing or disbonded TR translating cowl seal segments. In a case where all seal segments were missing, this condition, if not addressed, could lead to loss of thrust at maximum continuous thrust or at takeoff/go-around, possibly resulting in substantially reduced performance of the airplane. See the MCAI for additional background information.

The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The FAA has considered the comment received. The Air Line Pilots Association, International, (ALPA) indicated its support for the NPRM.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:

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

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

EASA AD 2021-0035 describes procedures for inspecting each TR for damage (including tears, cracks, unwanted sealant on the contact surface, missing pieces, worn-out seals, or glass or ceramic ply that is not impacted), reworking the pressure seal bonding, and replacing damaged translating cowl pressure seals.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 8 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition action that would be required based on the results of any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for affected operators. As a result, the FAA has included all known costs in the cost estimate.

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

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

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

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

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

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

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

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2021-0033, dated January 25, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0033) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, -300, -800, and -900 series airplanes; and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. Model A330-743L airplanes are not certificated by the FAA and are not included on the U.S. type certificate data sheet; this AD therefore does not include those airplanes in the applicability.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus SAS Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, -300, -800, and -900 series airplanes; and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 18, 2021 (86 FR 26855). The NPRM was prompted by reports of incorrect installation of the lower attachment parts of the THSA. The NPRM proposed to require doing a detailed inspection of the THSA lower attachment parts for discrepancies and corrective action if necessary, and to prohibit using earlier versions of certain AMM tasks, as specified in EASA AD 2021-0033.

The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The FAA has considered the comment received. The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) indicated its support for the NPRM.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:

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

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

EASA AD 2021-0033 describes procedures for doing a detailed inspection of the THSA lower attachment parts for discrepancies ( i.e., incorrect installation) and corrective actions (which includes detailed inspections of the horizontal stabilizer, the assembly of the trim actuating arms, the support fittings, and the upper and lower attachment plates for any cracks, dents and scratches, corrosion, deterioration of the structure, the condition of the fasteners and bearings, and repair; and re-installing or replacing the THSA lower attachment parts) if necessary. EASA AD 2021-0033 also prohibits using earlier versions of certain AMM tasks. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 120 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

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

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

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

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

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

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

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

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2021-0004, dated January 6, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0004) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 7, 2021 (86 FR 24549). The NPRM was prompted by a report that during an inspection of the flight deck escape hatches it was found that they were difficult to open from the inside, and several hatches were found impossible to open from the outside. Subsequent investigation revealed corrosion on the flight deck escape hatch mechanism due to condensation penetrating inside the mechanism. The NPRM proposed to require replacing all affected flight deck escape hatches with serviceable hatches, as specified in EASA AD 2021-0004.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address possible inaccessibility of the flight deck escape hatch, which could impede flightcrew evacuation during an emergency. See the MCAI for additional background information.

The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) indicated its support for the NPRM.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:

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

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

EASA AD 2021-0004 describes procedures for replacing all affected flight deck escape hatches with serviceable flight deck escape hatches.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 15 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for affected operators. As a result, the FAA has included all known costs in the cost estimate.

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

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

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

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

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

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

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

TCCA, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued TCCA AD CF-2020-36, dated October 8, 2020 (TCCA AD CF-2020-36) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 24, 2021 (86 FR 11178). The NPRM was prompted by reports of deficiencies in the PFCC and REU software. The NPRM proposed to require installation of a software update to correct deficiencies in the PFCC and REU software, as specified in TCCA AD CF-2020-36.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address software deficiencies that, if not corrected, could impact flight control functions, which could prevent continued safe flight and landing. See the MCAI for additional background information.

The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment. Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) expressed support for the NPRM.

Delta Air Lines (Delta) requested that paragraphs (h)(3) and (4) be added to the proposed AD to clarify that it is acceptable to use a different method of upgrading the REU and PFCC with the specified software, using Airbus Canada Service Bulletin (SB) BD500-270013, Issue 001, dated July 17, 2020, only as a reference. Delta explained that it has a different policy for installing PFCC software that requires the use of a Portable Maintenance Access Terminal (PMAT), model PMAT2000, instead of a USB device.

The FAA partially agrees with the proposed changes. The FAA agrees to clarify that the PMAT method is permitted, but the FAA will not require the use of a specific model of PMAT. Also, using the service information as a reference must be specified in a note rather than in the paragraph itself. Therefore, a single paragraph (h)(3) has been added to this AD to provide this clarification, and a note has been added regarding the use of Airbus Canada Service Bulletin (SB) BD500-270013, Issue 001, dated July 17, 2020, as a reference.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:

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

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

The FAA also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final rule.

TCCA AD CF-2020-36 describes procedures for installing updated PFCC and REU software; this installation includes prerequisites (installing certain database versions and software) that must be met prior to the installation. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 38 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for affected operators. As a result, the FAA has included all known costs in the cost estimate.

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

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

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

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

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all P&WC PW210A and PW210S model turboshaft engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 26, 2021 (86 FR 11651). The NPRM was prompted by a report from the manufacturer that the ADTS may under-count the number of cycles accrued by the impeller and the HPC rotor. The impeller and HPC rotor are both life-limited components and exceeding their published life limits could result in the failure of these components. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require the use of the manual LCF counting method in place of the ADTS counting method to determine the number of cycles accrued by the impeller and HPC rotor. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (Transport Canada), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Transport Canada AD CF-2020-13, dated April 28, 2020 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to address the unsafe condition on these products. The MCAI states:

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0103.

The FAA received comments from one commenter. The individual commenter supported the NPRM without change.

The FAA added paragraph (i) to this AD to clarify that the reporting specified in P&WC Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. PW210-72-A57142, Revision No. 1, dated March 26, 2020, and P&WC ASB No. PW210-72-A57143, Revision No. 1, dated March 26, 2020, is not required by this AD.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting the AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

The FAA reviewed Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. PW210-72-A57142, Revision No. 1, dated March 26, 2020 (ASB No. PW210-72-A57142); and Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. ASB No. PW210-72-A57143, Revision No. 1, dated March 26, 2020 (ASB No. PW210-72-A57143). ASB No. PW210-72-A57142 specifies procedures for calculating the correct, current LCF cycle count for the impeller and HPC rotor on PW210A model turboshaft engines. ASB No. PW210-72-A57143 specifies procedures for calculating the correct, current LCF cycle count for the impeller and HPC rotor installed on PW210S model turboshaft engines. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES .

The FAA reviewed Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. Task 00-00-00-860-801 and Task 00-00-00-860-803 of Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. Engine Maintenance Manual (EMM), Manual Part No. 30L2392, Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS), both at Revision 13, dated September 28, 2020.

Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. Task 00-00-00-860-801 of Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. EMM, Manual Part No. 30L2392, identifies the LCF life limits for the impeller and HPC rotor. Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. Task 00-00-00-860-803 of Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. EMM, Manual Part No. 30L2392, describes procedures for manually calculating the correct, current LCF cycle count for the impeller and HPC rotor and provides the formula for manually calculating the accumulated total cycles for the impeller and HPC rotor.

The FAA considers this AD to be an interim action. If final action is later identified, the FAA might consider additional rulemaking.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 66 engines installed on helicopters of U.S. registry.

The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

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

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

Background

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued TCCA AD CF-2016-37, dated November 25, 2016 (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-1A11 (600), CL-600-2A12 (601), and CL-600-2B16 (601-3A, 601-3R, and 604 Variants) airplanes. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-1181.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-1A11 (600), CL-600-2A12 (601), and CL-600-2B16 (601-3A, 601-3R and 604 Variants) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 17, 2021 (86 FR 14551). The NPRM was prompted by reports of corrosion on the passenger door internal structure of in-service airplanes caused by an accumulation of moisture under the epoxy ramp. The NPRM proposed to require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. The FAA is issuing this AD to address corrosion on the passenger door internal structure and consequent loss of the structural integrity of the forward passenger door. See the MCAI for additional background information.

The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:

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

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

The FAA reviewed the following Bombardier service information, which describes new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations for the upper latch pins of the forward passenger door. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane configurations. (Note: The asterisk (or “one star”) with the last three digits of the task number indicates that the task is an airworthiness limitation task.)

• Task 53-10-01-101 *, “Upper Latch Pins of the Passenger Door,” of Bombardier Challenger CL-600-1A11 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (TLMC), Product Support Publication (PSP) 605, Revision 39, dated January 8, 2018.

• Task 53-10-01-101 *, “Upper Latch Pins of the Passenger Door,” of Bombardier Challenger CL-600-2A12 TLMC, PSP 601-5, Revision 46, dated January 8, 2018.

• Task 53-10-01-101 *, “Upper Latch Pins of the Passenger Door,” of Bombardier Challenger CL-600-2B16 TLMC, PSP 601A-5, Revision 42, dated January 8, 2018.

• Task 53-20-00-188 *, “Special Detailed Inspection of the Upper Latch Pins of the Passenger Door,” of Bombardier Challenger TLMC, CH 604 TLMC, Revision 32, dated December 18, 2019.

• Task 53-20-00-188 *, “Special Detailed Inspection of the Upper Latch Pins of the Passenger Door,” of Bombardier Challenger TLMC, CH 605 TLMC, Revision 21, dated December 18, 2019.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 133 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA has determined that revising the maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, the agency estimates the average total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

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

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

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

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

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

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

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

This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.

The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.

Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

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

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, CFR part 97, (is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, 8260-15B, when required by an entry on 8260-15A, and 8260-15C.

The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers or aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the typed of SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flights safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

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

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CRF part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

1. By this final rule, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is amending parts 4 and 5 of its regulations governing the filing requirements for qualifying conduits and certain major hydroelectric power projects. The Commission, under Part I of the Federal Power Act (FPA), licenses hydropower projects that are developed by non-Federal entities including individuals, private entities, states, municipalities, electric cooperatives, and others.

2. The Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 (2013 HREA)  1 was signed into law on August 9, 2013. As explained below, changes implemented in response to the 2013 HREA form the basis for these revisions to the Commission's regulations.

3. On February 18, 2021, the Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) proposing to: (1) Remove the requirement that a notice of intent to construct a qualifying conduit include a profile drawing showing the source of the hydroelectric potential in instances where a dam would be constructed in association with the facility; and (2) extend the licensing requirements that currently apply to major projects up to 5 megawatts (MW) to major projects 10 MW or less, consistent with the amended definition of a small hydroelectric power project in the 2013 HREA. 2 The Commission did not receive any comments in response to the NOPR. The proposal set forth in the NOPR and the Commission's determination are discussed below.

4. The NOPR explained that the 2013 HREA amended section 30 of the FPA to create a subset of small conduit facilities that are categorically excluded from the licensing and exemption requirements of the FPA. In 2014, the Commission issued Order No. 800, which became effective February 23, 2015, defining a “qualifying conduit hydropower facility” at § 4.30(b)(26) of its regulations. 3 Subsequently, section 30 of the FPA was amended by the America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018. 4

5. In accordance with section 30(a)(2)(A), 5 any person, State, or municipality proposing to construct a “qualifying conduit hydropower facility” must file a notice of intent demonstrating the facility meets the following “qualifying criteria”:  6

• Be located on and use only the hydroelectric potential of a non-federally owned conduit;

• have a proposed installed capacity that does not exceed 40 MW;  7 and

• be proposed for construction and, as of the date of enactment of the 2013 HREA, not be licensed under, or exempted from, the licensing requirements of Part I of the FPA.

6. Under the 2013 HREA, as amended, 8 the Commission is required to determine whether proposed projects meet the criteria to be considered qualifying conduit hydropower facilities. Qualifying conduit hydropower facilities are not required to be licensed or exempted by the Commission; however, the entity proposing to construct a facility that meets the criteria must file a Notice of Intent to Construct a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility (NOI) with the Commission that demonstrates the facility meets the qualifying criteria discussed above.

7. The NOI must contain: An introductory statement; a statement that the proposed project will use the hydroelectric potential of a non-federally owned conduit; a statement that the proposed facility has not been licensed or exempted on or before August 9, 2013; a description of the facility proposal; project drawings; the preliminary permit project number of the proposed facility, if applicable; and verification in a sworn notarized statement or an unsworn statement. 9 Specifically with respect to the project drawings, the NOI must include a plan (or overhead view); a location map showing the facilities and their relationship to the nearest town; and if a dam would be constructed in association with the facility, a profile drawing showing that the conduit, and not the dam, creates the hydroelectric potential. 10

8. On June 18, 2015, in Soldier Canyon Filter Plant, 11 the Commission stated:

In determining whether a proposed qualifying conduit hydropower facility meets the requirement of FPA section 30(a) that it use “only the hydroelectric potential of a non-federally owned conduit” and (if it meets the other section 30(a) requirements) is thus excluded from the licensing requirements of the FPA, we see no reason to apply a different, more stringent standard than was established in 1980 for small conduit facility exemptions. We view small conduit facilities and qualifying conduits as simply generating hydroelectricity by using the water within a conduit operated for the distribution of water for agricultural, municipal, or industrial consumption and not primarily for the generation of electricity. Whether, or in what proportion, the conduit's ability to generate hydropower is due to the conduit's gradient or the head from an upstream dam is not relevant. 12

9. Section 405 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA)  13 provided that certain hydropower projects that produce 5,000 kilowatts, or 5 MW, or less of power were exempted from the licensing requirements of Part 1 of the FPA.

10. In 1981, the Commission adopted the 5-MW demarcation for certain major hydroelectric projects required to be licensed under Part 1 of the FPA to parallel PURPA's 5-MW demarcation regarding exemptions. 14 Part 4 of the Commission's regulations includes three relevant licensing subparts: (1) Subpart E—Application for License for Major Unconstructed Project and Major Modified Project (see 18 CFR 4.40); (2) Subpart F—Application for License for Major Project—Existing Dam (see 18 CFR 4.50); and (3) Subpart G—Application for License for Minor Water Power Projects and Major Water Power Projects 5 MW or Less (see 18 CFR 4.60; 4.61). 15 Subparts E and F apply to projects greater than 5 MW, and include additional filing requirements beyond subpart G, which applies to projects less than or equal to 5 MW.

11. Likewise, part 4 of Commission's regulations include two subparts that rely on the same 5-MW limit to determine minimum filing requirements for an application for license solely for transmission lines that transmit power from a licensed water power projects as well amendments to licensed water power projects: (1) Subpart H—Application for License for Transmission Line Only (see 18 CFR 4.71); and (2) Subpart L—Application for Amendment of License (see 18 CFR 4.201), respectively.

12. Part 5 of the Commission's regulations rely on the 5-MW limit to determine minimum filing requirements for applications for license for water power projects filed and processed using the integrated licensing process (see 18 CFR 5.18).

13. The 2013 HREA amended section 405 to increase the limit for exemptions to 10,000 kilowatts, or 10 MW, with the goal of facilitating the speed at which such hydropower projects could be built. Order 800 amended the Commission's regulations to reflect the 10-MW limit. 16

14. As a result of these changes, the Commission's limit for license application provisions no longer parallels the limit for exemptions. We stated in the NOPR that we continue to believe that a parallel demarcation is appropriate to “expedite hydropower development by easing the burden of preparing an application for license and by assisting the Commission in more rapid processing of applications.”  17 Moreover, the 5-MW limit in the Commission's regulations could be burdensome to projects greater than 5 MW and up to and including 10 MW, in terms of the cost and time associated with the additional filing requirements of subparts E and F.

15. Therefore, the Commission proposed to amend parts 4 and 5 of its regulations to extend the licensing and amendment filing requirements that currently apply to major projects up to 5 MW to major projects 10 MW or less, consistent with the amended definition of a small hydroelectric power project in the 2013 HREA. 18

16. For the reasons discussed above, the Commission adopts the NOPR's proposal to: (1) Remove the requirement that an NOI include a profile drawing showing the source of the hydroelectric potential in instances where a dam would be constructed in association with the facility; and (2) extend the licensing requirements that currently apply to major projects up to 5 MW to major projects 10 MW or less.

17. The Paperwork Reduction Act  19 requires each Federal agency to seek and obtain the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval before undertaking a collection of information directed to 10 or more persons or contained in a rule of general applicability. OMB regulations require approval of certain information collection requirements contained in final rules published in the Federal Register . 20 Upon approval of a collection of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and an expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of a rule will not be penalized for failing to respond to the collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.

18. Public Reporting Burden: By revising regulations governing the filing requirements for qualifying conduits and for major hydroelectric power projects greater than 5 MW and up to and including 10 MW, this final rule will modify certain reporting and recordkeeping requirements included in FERC-500 (OMB Control No 1902-0058)  21 and FERC-505 (OMB Control No. 1902-0115). 22

19. These revisions to the Commission's regulations will align the filing requirements for qualifying conduits with Commission precedent and align the filing requirements for major projects greater than 5 MW and up to and including 10 MW to be consistent with the amended definition of a small hydroelectric power project in the 2013 HREA. Both revisions represent a slight decrease in the reporting requirements and burden information for FERC-500 and FERC-505.

20. The estimated burden and cost for the requirements affected by this final rule follow.

21. Titles: FERC-500 (Application for License/Relicense for Water Projects with More than 5 Megawatt (MW) Capacity) and FERC-505 (Small Hydropower Projects and Conduit Facilities including License/Relicense, Exemption, and Qualifying Conduit Facility Determination).

22. Action: Revisions to information collections FERC-500 and FERC-505.

23. OMB Control Nos.: 1902-0058 (FERC-500) and 1902-0115 (FERC-505).

24. Respondents: Municipalities, businesses, private citizens, and for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.

25. Frequency of Information: Ongoing.

26. Necessity of Information: The revised regulations remove the Commission's requirement for notices of intent to construct a qualifying conduit to include a profile drawing, consistent with Commission precedent, and align the Commission's filing requirements for major projects greater than 5 MW and up to and including 10 MW to be consistent with the amended definition of a small hydroelectric power project in the 2013 HREA. The revised regulations affect only the number of entities that would file applications with the Commission for these two project types and reduce information collection requirements.

27. Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the revisions and has determined that they are necessary. These requirements conform to the Commission's need for efficient information collection, communication, and management within the energy industry. The Commission has assured itself, by means of internal review, that there is specific, objective support for the burden estimates associated with the information collection requirements.

28. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by contacting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at one of the following methods:

• USPS at: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive Director, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

• Hard copy communication other than USPS: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive Director, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

• email to: DataClearance@ferc.gov.

• phone: (202) 502-8663, or by fax: (202) 273-0873.

29. Please send comments concerning the collection of information and the associated burden estimates to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget [Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Desk Officer]. Due to security concerns, comments should be sent directly to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Comments submitted to OMB should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notification in the Federal Register and should refer to FERC-500 (OMB Control No 1902-0058) and FERC-505 (OMB Control No. 1902-0115).

30. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact statement for any action that may have a significant effect on the human environment. 25 Excluded from this requirement are rules that are clarifying, corrective, or procedural, or that do not substantially change the effect of legislation or the regulations being amended. 26 This final rule revises the filing requirements for qualifying conduit projects and the filing requirements for license applications for major hydroelectric projects with an installed capacity of 10 MW or less. Because this final rule is procedural and does not substantially change the effect of the regulations being amended, preparation of an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement is not required.

31. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)  27 generally requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA mandates consideration of regulatory alternatives that accomplish the stated objectives of a rulemaking and minimize any significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 28 In lieu of preparing a regulatory flexibility analysis, an agency may certify that a final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 29

32. The Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Size Standards develops the numerical definition of a small business. 30 The SBA size standard for electric utilities is based on the number of employees, including affiliates. 31 Under SBA's current size standards, a hydroelectric power generator (NAICS code 221111)  32 is small if, including its affiliates, it employs 500 or fewer people. 33 The Commission, however, currently does not require information regarding the number of individuals employed by hydroelectric generators to administer Part 1 of the Federal Power Act and therefore is unable to estimate the number of small entities under the SBA definition. Regardless, the Commission anticipates that this final rule will affect few entities.

33. As noted earlier, the final rule will only affect entities filing notices of intent to construct a qualifying conduit in instances where a dam would be constructed in association with the facility and entities filing licensing or amendment applications for major hydroelectric projects with an installed capacity of greater than 5 MW and up to and including 10 MW. From 2013 to 2020, the Commission received approximately 140 total notices to construct qualifying conduits and 18 applicable licensing applications. The revisions will eliminate the filing requirement for profile drawings and reduce the filing requirements for major hydroelectric projects with an installed capacity greater than 5 MW and up to and including 10 MW, thus reducing the burden on small hydro developers going forward.

34. Accordingly, pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, the Commission certifies that this final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

35. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register , the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the internet through the Commission's Home Page ( http://www.ferc.gov ). At this time, the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference Room due to the March 13, 2020 proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19).

36. From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.

37. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from the Commission's Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.

38. These regulations are effective October 4, 2021. The Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule is not a “major rule” as defined in section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This rule is being submitted to the Senate, House, Government Accountability Office, and Small Business Administration.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends parts 4 and 5, chapter I, title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

The final regulations (TD 9889) that are the subject of this correction are under section 1400Z-2 of the Code.

As published on January 13, 2020 (85 FR 1866) the final regulations (TD 9889) contain errors that need to be corrected.

Accordingly, the final regulations (TD 9889) that are the subject of FR Doc. 2019-27846, appearing on page 1866 in the Federal Register of January 13, 2020, are corrected as follows:

1. On page 1897, second and third columns, removing the fourth through the sixth sentences of the last paragraph.

2. On page 1923, first column, the first full paragraph is corrected to read: “As set forth in the final regulations, the 62-month working capital safe harbor provides that, during the maximum 62-month covered period, (1) NQFP in excess of the five-percent NQFP limitation will not cause a trade or business to fail to qualify as a qualified opportunity zone business, and (2) gross income earned from the trade or business will be counted towards satisfying the 50-percent gross income requirement (each of clauses (1) and (2) function in a manner similar to the 31-month working capital safe harbor). In addition, the regulations provide additional flexibility for entities utilizing the working capital safe harbor. First, for start-up entities, the 62-month working capital safe harbor provides that, during the maximum 62-month covered period, if property of an entity that would otherwise be NQFP is treated as being a reasonable amount of working capital under the safe harbor, the entity satisfies the requirements of section 1400Z-2(d)(3)(A)(i) only during the working capital safe harbor period(s) with regard to such property. However, the final regulations make clear that such property is not and will never be qualified opportunity zone business property for any purpose. Second, for any eligible entity utilizing the working capital safe harbor, if tangible property is expected to be qualified opportunity zone business property pursuant to the written plan, such tangible property is treated as qualified opportunity zone business during the working capital safe harbor test for purposes of section 1400Z-2(d)(3). Under the 62-month working capital safe harbor, intangible property purchased or licensed with working capital covered by the safe harbor, and pursuant to the plan submitted with respect to that safe harbor, will count towards the satisfaction of the 40-percent intangible property use test.”

3. On page 1926, third column, the second sentence of the first full paragraph, the language “In general, the final regulations permit a qualified opportunity zone business to treat tangible property for which working capital covered by the 31-month working capital safe harbor is expended as (i) used in the trade or business of the qualified opportunity zone business, and (ii) qualified opportunity zone business property throughout the period during which such working capital is covered by the safe harbor.” is corrected to read “In general, the 62-month working capital safe harbor under the final regulations provides that, during the maximum 62-month covered period, if property of a start-up entity that would otherwise be NQFP is treated as being a reasonable amount of working capital under the safe harbor, the start-up entity satisfies the requirements of section 1400Z-2(d)(3)(A)(i) only during the working capital safe harbor period(s) with regard to such property. However, the final regulations make clear that such property is not qualified opportunity zone business property for any other purpose. See part V.N.3.c of this Summary of Comments and Explanation of Revisions describing the 62-month working capital safe harbor set forth in § 1.1400Z2(d)-1(d)(3)(vi).”.

4. On page 1926, third column, the first through the sixth line from the bottom of the first full paragraph, the language “capital covered by the 31-month working capital safe harbor are not, following the conclusion of the final safe harbor period, treated as tangible property for purposes of applying the 70-percent tangible property standard.” is corrected to read “capital covered by the 62-month working capital safe harbor are not, following the conclusion of the final safe harbor period, treated as qualified opportunity zone business property for purposes of applying the 70-percent tangible property standard. Because working capital is not tangible property, working capital covered by the 62-month safe harbor cannot be treated as qualified opportunity zone business property under the proposed regulations or the final regulations except as provided in section 1.1400Z2(d)-1(d)(3)(vi)(D).”.

The final regulations (TD 9889) that are the subject of this correction are under section 1400Z-2 of the Code.

As published on January 13, 2020 (85 FR 19082) the final regulations (TD 9889) contain errors that need to be corrected.

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking with respect to this rule because the event sponsor did not submit notice of the fireworks display to the Coast Guard with sufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest by inhibiting the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with this fireworks display.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . For the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, waiting for a 30-day notice period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port (COTP) Buffalo has determined that fireworks over the water presents significant risks to public safety and property. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks display is taking place.

This rule establishes a safety zone from 8:50 p.m. through 10 p.m. on August 20, 2021. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within a 840-feet radius of barge launched fireworks in Presque Isle bay in Erie, PA. The duration of the zone is intended to protect spectators, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters during the fireworks display. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP Buffalo or a designated representative.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. The safety zone will encompass a 840-feet radius of barge launched fireworks in Presque Isle bay in Erie, PA. lasting approxiamately 1 hour during the evening when vessel traffic is normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting approximately 1 hour that will prohibit entry within a 840-feet radius in Presque Isle bay in Erie, PA. for a fireworks display. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

Purpose of Programs: The purpose of the Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities program is to promote academic achievement and to improve results for children with disabilities by providing technical assistance (TA), supporting model demonstration projects, disseminating useful information, and implementing activities that are supported by scientifically based research. The purpose of the Technical Assistance on State Data Collection program is to improve the capacity of States to meet the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) data collection and reporting requirements. In addition, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, gives the Secretary authority to use funds reserved under section 611(c) of the IDEA to administer and carry out other services and activities to improve data collection, coordination, quality, and use under Parts B and C of the IDEA.

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1411, 1416, 1463, and 1481; and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Div. H, Title III of Public Law 116-260, 134 Stat. 1182.

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR 300.702.

We published a notice of proposed priorities (NPP) for this program in the Federal Register on March 25, 2021 (86 FR 15830). That document contained background information and our reasons for proposing the particular priorities.

Under section 681 of the IDEA, the Secretary may give priority to the activities listed in section 681(d) without regard to the rulemaking procedures in section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The activities required to be conducted under Proposed Priority 1 are activities listed in section 681(d), whereas the activities required to be conducted under Proposed Priority 2 include activities that are outside the exemption from rulemaking under IDEA section 681(d). As a result, pursuant to the notice and comment rulemaking requirements of section 553 of the APA, in the NPP, the Department specifically invited comments regarding Proposed Priority 2, including: (1) The program requirements under Proposed Priority 2; and (2) the application and administrative requirements under the common elements section of Proposed Priority 1 and Proposed Priority 2, but only as the requirements apply to Proposed Priority 2. We appreciate commenters' input on Proposed Priority 1. For the purposes of this notice of final priority (NFP), we address only the comments on Proposed Priority 2, including the associated application and administrative requirements.

We make substantive changes to Proposed Priority 2 by adding a focus on increasing the capacity of parents of students with disabilities to understand the statutory and regulatory bases for, and benefits of, including all students with disabilities in State and districtwide assessments and other assessments used for educational programming and instructional purposes. These substantive changes impact how Proposed Priority 2 focuses attention on the important role that parents play in addressing an identified need to address national, State, and local assessment issues related to students with disabilities, including students with disabilities who are also English learners (ELs).

There are also editorial differences between Proposed Priority 2 and its requirements and the final priority and requirements. In this NFP, we refer to Proposed Priority 2 as the priority, and to the Proposed Priority 2 application and administrative requirements common to Proposed Priority 1 and 2, as the requirements.

Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, eight parties submitted comments on the priority and requirements.

Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes, or suggested changes the law does not authorize us to make under the applicable statutory authority. In addition, we do not address general comments that raised concerns not directly related to the priority or requirements.

Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and of any changes in the priority since publication of the NPP follows.

Comment: Four commenters recommended that the Center include a focus on increasing the capacity of parents to understand the statutory, regulatory, and instructional programming bases for including all students with disabilities in State and districtwide assessments. These commenters noted that parents lack sufficient information regarding the participation of students with disabilities in State and districtwide assessments.

Discussion: We agree with the commenters regarding the importance of increasing the capacity of parents to understand the statutory, regulatory, and instructional programming bases for including all students with disabilities in State and districtwide assessments as well as other assessments used for educational programming and instructional purposes. Increasing parents' understanding in this area is likely to help ensure their meaningful involvement in decisions States make in analyzing and using diagnostic, interim, and summative assessment data to better achieve their State-Identified Measurable Result (SIMR), for those States that have a SIMR related to assessment, while at the same time incentivizing States to ensure the data reviewed and analyzed by the parents are of the highest quality; and thus improve data quality and use under IDEA Part B, consistent with section 611(c) of the IDEA and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, which authorizes the Secretary to use funds reserved under section 611(c) of the IDEA to administer and carry out other services and activities to improve data collection, coordination, quality, and use under Parts B and C of the IDEA. Therefore, we are revising the priority to require applicants to propose how the Center will increase the awareness of and understanding by parents of students with disabilities, regarding how students with disabilities are included in, and benefit from, participation in State and districtwide assessments and other assessments used for educational programming and instructional purposes to improve instruction of students with disabilities and support the implementation of the SIMR.

Changes: We have revised the expected outcomes of the priority by requiring applicants propose how the Center will increase parents of students with disabilities' awareness of and understanding of how students with disabilities are included in, and benefit from, participation in diagnostic, interim and summative assessments.

Comment: One commenter recommended revising references to “interim” assessments to “formative” assessments, noting that “interim” implies a less prescriptive and formal process than “formative.”

Discussion: We understand the point the commenter makes in general regarding the common meanings of the terms “interim” and “formative”; however, we disagree with the commenter that these distinctions apply to large-scale State and districtwide academic assessments. Interim assessments are more prescriptive and formal than formative assessments. Interim academic assessments typically focus on measuring student achievement based on a subset of State or school district established grade-level academic content standards. As such, they are designed to measure individual and collective student growth and are used to evaluate the effectiveness of teaching practices, programs, and initiatives; and project whether a student, class, or school is on track to achieve established proficiency benchmarks. Interim assessments can also provide information regarding the instructional needs of individual students, but to a lesser extent than formative assessments. In contrast, formative assessments typically are connected to a discrete instructional unit, the results of which are intended to help educators guide the learning process of individual students, rather than measure student performance against State or districtwide academic content and achievement standards.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter stated that the structure of the notice was confusing, and, in response to Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential memorandum “Plain Language in Government Writing,” recommended ways to reformat the proposed priority to improve clarity.

Discussion: The formatting for the notice published in the Federal Register was consistent with the Department's formatting requirements for publishing proposed priorities. However, we appreciate the commenter's feedback and will consider the commenter's formatting recommendations for future proposed priorities. In addition, we have described above our reasons for the structure of the NPP, and this NFP.

Changes: None.

The purpose of this priority is to (1) assist those States that have a SIMR related to assessment in analyzing and using diagnostic, interim, and summative assessment data to better achieve the SIMR as described in their IDEA Part B State Systemic Improvement Plans (SSIPs); and (2) assist State efforts to provide technical assistance (TA) to local educational agencies (LEAs) in analyzing and using State and districtwide assessment data, for those States that have a SIMR related to assessment, to better achieve the SIMR, as appropriate.

The Center must achieve, at a minimum, the following expected outcomes:

(a) Increased capacity of State educational agency (SEA) personnel in States that have a SIMR related to assessment results to analyze and use diagnostic, interim and summative assessment data to better achieve the SIMR as described in the IDEA Part B SSIPs, including using diagnostic, interim and summative assessment data to evaluate and improve educational policy, inform instructional programs, and improve instruction for students with disabilities;

(b) Increased capacity of SEA personnel to provide TA to LEAs to analyze and use diagnostic, interim and summative assessment data to improve instruction of students with disabilities and support the implementation of the SIMR; and

(c) Increased capacity of parents of students with disabilities to understand how students with disabilities are included in, and benefit from, participation in diagnostic, interim and summative assessments to improve instruction of students with disabilities and support implementation of the SIMR.

In addition to these program requirements, to be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application and administrative requirements under the priority Technical Assistance and Dissemination To Improve Services and Results for Children With Disabilities—National Assessment Center and the following application and administrative requirements, which are:

(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Significance,” how the proposed project will—

(1) Address the needs of SEAs and LEAs to analyze and use diagnostic, interim, and summative assessment data in instructional decision-making to improve teaching and learning for students with disabilities. To meet this requirement the applicant must—

(i) Present applicable national, State, and local data demonstrating the needs of SEAs and LEAs to analyze and use diagnostic, interim, and summative assessment data in instructional decision-making to improve teaching and learning for students with disabilities;

(ii) Demonstrate knowledge of current educational issues and policy initiatives related to analyzing and using diagnostic, interim, and summative assessment data in instructional decision-making to improve teaching and learning for students with disabilities; and

(iii) Describe the current level of implementation related to analyzing and using diagnostic, interim, and summative assessment data in instructional decision-making to improve teaching and learning for students with disabilities; and

(2) Improve the analysis and use of diagnostic, interim, and summative assessment data to improve teaching and learning for students with disabilities.

(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of project services,” how the proposed project will—

(1) Ensure equal access and treatment for members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability. To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe how it will—

(i) Identify the needs of the intended recipients for TA and information; and

(ii) Ensure that products and services meet the needs of the intended recipients ( e.g., by creating materials in formats and languages accessible to the stakeholders served by the intended recipients);

(2) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. To meet this requirement, the applicant must provide—

(i) Measurable intended project outcomes; and

(ii) In appendix A, the logic model  1 by which the proposed project will achieve its intended outcomes that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and intended outcomes of the proposed project;

(3) Use a conceptual framework (and provide a copy in Appendix A) to develop project plans and activities, describing any underlying concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as the presumed relationships or linkages among these variables, and any empirical support for this framework;

(4) Be based on current research and make use of evidence-based  2 practices (EBPs). To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) The current research on the effectiveness of analyzing and using diagnostic, interim, and summative assessment data in instructional decision-making to improve teaching and learning for students with disabilities; and

(ii) How the proposed project will incorporate current EBPs in the development and delivery of its products and services;

(5) Develop products and provide services that are of high quality and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended outcomes of the proposed project. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) How it proposes to identify or develop the knowledge base on analyzing and using diagnostic, interim, and summative assessment data in instructional decision-making to improve teaching and learning for students with disabilities;

(ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA, 3 which must identify the intended recipients, including the type and number of recipients, that will receive the products and services under this approach;

(iii) Its proposed approach to targeted, specialized TA, 4 which must identify—

(A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of recipients, that will receive the products and services under this approach; and

(B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of potential TA recipients to work with the project, assessing, at a minimum, their current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build capacity at the local level; and

(iv) Its proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA, 5 which must identify—

(A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of recipients, that will receive the products and services under this approach;

(B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of SEA and LEA personnel to work with the project, including their commitment to the initiative, alignment of the initiative to their needs, current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build capacity at the SEA and LEA levels;

(C) Its proposed plan for assisting SEAs (and LEAs, in conjunction with SEAs) to build or enhance training systems that include professional development based on adult learning principles and coaching;

(D) Its proposed plan for working with appropriate levels of the education system ( e.g., SEAs, regional TA providers, LEAs, schools, and families) to ensure that there is communication between each level and that there are systems in place to support the collection, analysis, and use of diagnostic, interim, and summative assessment data in instructional decision-making to improve teaching and learning for students with disabilities; and

(E) Its proposed plan for collaborating and coordinating with Department-funded TA investments, where appropriate, in order to align complementary work and jointly develop and implement products and services to meet the purposes of this priority;

(6) Develop products and implement services that maximize efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the intended project outcomes;

(ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the intended outcomes of this collaboration; and

(iii) How the proposed project will use non-project resources to achieve the intended project outcomes; and

(7) Develop a dissemination plan that describes how the applicant will systematically distribute information, products, and services to varied intended audiences, using a variety of dissemination strategies, to promote awareness and use of the Center's products and services.

(c) In the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the project evaluation,” include an evaluation plan for the project developed in consultation with and implemented by a third-party evaluator. 6 The evaluation plan must—

(1) Articulate formative and summative evaluation questions, including important process and outcome evaluation questions. These questions should be related to the project's proposed logic model required in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of these requirements;

(2) Describe how progress in and fidelity of implementation, as well as project outcomes, will be measured to answer the evaluation questions. Specify the measures and associated instruments or sources for data appropriate to the evaluation questions. Include information regarding reliability and validity of measures where appropriate;

(3) Describe strategies for analyzing data and how data collected as part of this plan will be used to inform and improve service delivery over the course of the project and to refine the proposed logic model and evaluation plan, including subsequent data collection;

(4) Provide a timeline for conducting the evaluation, and include staff assignments for completing the plan. The timeline must indicate that the data will be available annually for the annual performance report (APR) and at the end of Year 2 for the review process described under the heading, Fourth and Fifth Years of the Project; and

(5) Dedicate sufficient funds in each budget year to cover the costs of developing or refining the evaluation plan in consultation with a “third-party” evaluator, as well as the costs associated with the implementation of the evaluation plan by the third-party evaluator.

(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Adequacy of resources and quality of project personnel,” how—

(1) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability, as appropriate;

(2) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors have the qualifications and experience to carry out the proposed activities and achieve the project's intended outcomes;

(3) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to carry out the proposed activities; and

(4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the anticipated results and benefits.

(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Management Plan,” how—

(1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the project's intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable; and

(ii) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks;

(2) Key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors will be allocated and how these allocations are appropriate and adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes;

(3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and services provided are of high quality, relevant, and useful to recipients; and

(4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of perspectives, including those of families, educators, TA providers, researchers, and policy makers, among others, in its development and operation.

(f) Address the following application requirements. The applicant must—

(1) Include, in Appendix A, personnel-loading charts and timelines, as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the narrative;  7

(2) Include, in the budget, attendance at the following:

(i) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting in Washington, DC, or virtually, after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting in Washington, DC, or virtually, with the OSEP project officer and other relevant staff during each subsequent year of the project period.

(ii) A two and one-half day project directors' conference in Washington, DC, or virtually, during each year of the project period;

(iii) Two annual two-day trips, or virtually, to attend Department briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by OSEP; and

(iv) A one-day intensive 3+2 review meeting in Washington, DC, or virtually, during the second year of the project period;

(3) Include, in the budget, a line item for an annual set-aside of five percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are consistent with the proposed project's intended outcomes, as those needs are identified in consultation with, and approved by, the OSEP project officer. With approval from the OSEP project officer, the project must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period;

(4) Maintain a high-quality website, with an easy-to-navigate design, that meets government or industry-recognized standards for accessibility;

(5) Ensure that annual project progress toward meeting project goals is posted on the project website; and

(6) Include, in Appendix A, an assurance to assist OSEP with the transfer of pertinent resources and products and to maintain the continuity of services to States during the transition to a new award at the end of this award period, as appropriate.

Fourth and Fifth Years of the Project:

In deciding whether to continue funding the project for the fourth and fifth years, the Secretary will consider the requirements of 34 CFR 75.253(a), including—

(a) The recommendations of a 3+2 review team consisting of experts who have experience and knowledge in providing technical assistance to SEA and LEA personnel in including students with disabilities in assessments and accountability systems. This review will be conducted during a one-day intensive meeting that will be held during the last half of the second year of the project period;

(b) The timeliness with which, and how well, the requirements of the negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the project; and

(c) The quality, relevance, and usefulness of the project's products and services and the extent to which the project's products and services are aligned with the project's objectives and likely to result in the project achieving its intended outcomes.

Under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary may reduce continuation awards or discontinue awards in any year of the project period for excessive carryover balances or a failure to make substantial progress. The Department intends to closely monitor unobligated balances and substantial progress under this program and may reduce or discontinue funding accordingly.

Types of Priorities:

When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal Register . The effect of each type of priority follows:

Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).

Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).

Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

This document does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);

(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.

This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule as not a “major rule,” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;

(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);

(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and

(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.

Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”

We are issuing the final priority only on a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.

We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

In accordance with these Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.

The Department believes that the costs associated with the final priority will be minimal, while the benefits are significant. The Department believes that this regulatory action does not impose significant costs on eligible entities. Participation in this program is voluntary, and the costs imposed on applicants by this regulatory action will be limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an application. The benefits of implementing the program to focus attention on an identified need to address national, State, and local assessment issues related to students with disabilities, including students with disabilities who are also ELs, will outweigh the costs incurred by applicants, and the costs of carrying out activities associated with the application will be paid for with program funds. For these reasons, we have determined that the costs of implementation will not be excessively burdensome for eligible applicants, including small entities.

The Department believes that the priority is needed to administer the program effectively.

The final priority contains information collection requirements that are approved by OMB under control number 1820-0028; the final priority does not affect the currently approved data collection.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies that this final regulatory action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) Size Standards define proprietary institutions as small businesses if they are independently owned and operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and have total annual revenue below $7,000,000. Nonprofit institutions are defined as small entities if they are independently owned and operated and not dominant in their field of operation. Public institutions are defined as small organizations if they are operated by a government overseeing a population below 50,000.

The small entities that this final regulatory action will affect are SEAs; LEAs, including charter schools that operate as LEAs under State law; institutions of higher education; other public agencies; private nonprofit organizations; freely associated States and outlying areas; Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations; and for-profit organizations. We believe that the costs imposed on an applicant by the final priority and requirements will be limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an application and that the benefits of this final priority will outweigh any costs incurred by the applicant.

Participation in Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities and Technical Assistance on State Data Collection—National Assessment Center program is voluntary. For this reason, the final priority will impose no burden on small entities unless they applied for funding under the program. We expect that in determining whether to apply for the Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities and Technical Assistance on State Data Collection—National Assessment Center program funds, an eligible entity will evaluate the requirements of preparing an application and any associated costs and weigh them against the benefits likely to be achieved by receiving a Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities and Technical Assistance on State Data Collection—National Assessment Center program grant. An eligible entity will most likely apply only if it determines that the likely benefits exceed the costs of preparing an application.

We believe that the final priority will not impose any additional burden on a small entity applying for a grant than the entity would face in the absence of the final action. That is, the length of the applications those entities would submit in the absence of the final regulatory action and the time needed to prepare an application will likely be the same.

This final regulatory action will not have a significant economic impact on a small entity once it receives a grant because it would be able to meet the costs of compliance using the funds provided under this program.

Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.

This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.

Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible format.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register , in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

More than 3.7 million United States service members have participated in operations in Southwest Asia. During and after the initial Gulf War conflict, veterans began reporting a variety of health problems, as documented through the NASEM Gulf War and Health, Volumes 1 through 11. In addition, concerns continue to be raised by service members, veterans, veteran advocates, and Congress about possible adverse health consequences related to in-theater exposures to particulate matter, including smoke from open burn pits, and other airborne hazards. Several studies by NASEM have examined the possible contribution of air pollution to adverse health effects among U.S. military personnel serving in the Middle East or their descendants. 2

In February 2008 the Department of Defense issued the Department of Defense Enhanced Particulate Matter Surveillance Program (EPMSP) Final Report. 3 The purpose of the study was to provide information on the chemical and physical properties of dust collected at deployment locations. Aerosol and bulk soil samples were collected during a period of approximately one year at 15 military sites—including Djibouti, Afghanistan (Bagram, Khowst), Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Iraq (Balad, Baghdad, Tallil, Tikrit, Taji, Al Asad), and Kuwait (Northern, Central, Coastal, and Southern regions). The Enhanced Particulate Matter Surveillance Program Report found that exposures in the region may have exceeded military/national exposure guidelines, including EPA's 24-hr NAAQS for PM 2.5 (see p.4 and p. 8, Figure 4-1).

The National Research Council (NRC) of NASEM independently reviewed DOD's final report in Review of the Department of Defense Enhanced Particulate Matter Surveillance Program Report in 2010. 4 The NRC committee highlighted that the EPMSP was one of the first large-scale efforts to characterize PM exposure in deployed military personnel. Despite the practical challenges of conducting this effort in an austere deployment environment, the NRC Report found the results of the EMPSP can be viewed as providing sufficient evidence that deployed military personnel endured occupational exposure to a potential hazard to justify implementation of a comprehensive medical-surveillance program to assess PM-related health effects in military personnel deployed in the Middle East Theater.

The NRC committee noted the EPMSP's approach and methodological techniques preclude comparison to existing literature on air sampling and limit a full understanding of PM chemical composition. The study also describes the challenges associated with conducting exposure-assessment/health surveillance studies, including related to: The need to have co-deployed medical/public health experts to conduct sampling; limitations in monitoring technologies in harsh environments for which they have not been validated and where they may overestimate concentrations due to bounce-off problems, limitations in DOD's health effects studies, difficulties in characterization of exposure of troops to multiple sources (dust storms, vehicle emissions, and emissions from burn pits), and potential confounding factors (such as smoking). This along with the infrequency of sampling as well as the lack of consideration of other ambient pollutants in the deployment environment make it challenging to fully ascertain the relationship between exposure data and health effects. Further complicating this interpretation are the paucity of exposure data from earlier conflicts, such as the first Gulf War, that limit understanding of potential chronic health effects.

Despite these limitations, the NRC committee found that the EPMSP results clearly documented that deployed Service Members deployed in the Middle East “are exposed to high concentrations of PM and that the particle composition varies considerably over time and space.” Further, the NRC Report committee concluded that “it is indeed plausible that exposure to ambient pollution in the Middle East theater is associated with adverse health outcomes.” The health outcomes noted may occur both during service (acute) as well as manifest years after exposure (chronic).

To further address and investigate this service member exposures, VA requested that NASEMexamine the long-term health consequences of service members' exposure to open burn pits while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. In NASEM's report, Long-Term Consequences of Exposure to Burn Pits in Iraq and Afghanistan, published in 2011, NASEM concluded that particulate matter from regional sources was of potential importance. 5 The report also recommended that VA expand its research studies beyond burn pits to explore the role of a broader range of possible airborne hazards.

In September 2018, the VA Post Deployment Health Services (PDHS) requested NASEM to study the respiratory health effects of airborne hazards exposures in Southwest Asia. Specifically, VA requested NASEM to evaluate the extent to which the existing knowledge base informs the understanding of the potential adverse effects of in-theater military service on respiratory health; identify gaps in research that could feasibly be addressed for outstanding questions; Review newly emerging technologies that could aid in these efforts, and identify organizations that VA might partner with to accomplish this work.

A NASEM committee was formed to undertake this review, which completed its work in early summer 2020. On September 11, 2020, NASEM published its findings and recommendations in the report, Respiratory Health Effects of Airborne Hazards Exposures in the Southwest Asia Theater of Military Operations. 6 The NASEM committee focused on “hazards associated with burn pit exposures; Excess mortality, cancer, bronchial asthma, chronic bronchitis, sinusitis, constrictive bronchiolitis, and other respiratory health outcomes that are of great concern to veterans; and emerging evidence on respiratory health outcomes in service members from research such as the Millennium Cohort Study, Study of Active Duty Military for Pulmonary Disease Related to Environmental Deployment Exposures (STAMPEDE), National Health Study for a New Generation of U.S. Veterans, Comparative Health Assessment Interview (CHAI) Study, Pulmonary Health and Deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan Objective Study, Effects of Deployment Exposures on Cardiopulmonary and Autonomic Function Study, and research being conducted by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) War Related Illness and Injury Study Center (WRIISC) Airborne Hazards Center of Excellence (AHCE) in New Jersey.”

The NASEM committee formulated a list of 27 respiratory health outcomes it deemed to be of concern to veterans in its review: Rhinitis, sinusitis, sleep apnea, vocal cord dysfunction, asthma, chronic bronchitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, constrictive bronchiolitis, emphysema, acute eosinophilic pneumonia, hypersensitivity pneumonitis, idiopathic interstitial pneumonia, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, pulmonary alveolar proteinosis, sarcoidosis, acute bronchitis, pneumonia, tuberculosis, chronic persistent cough, shortness of breath (dyspnea), wheeze, esophageal cancer, laryngeal cancer, lung cancer, oral/nasal/pharyngeal cancers, as well as changes in pulmonary function and mortality due to diseases of the respiratory system.

The NASEM committee also considered different types and sources of exposure in its review: Exposures associated with military operations in the Southwest Asia theater such as open burn pits, emissions from the 2003 Al-Mishraq sulfur plant fire, fuels, oil-well fires, nerve agents, and depleted uranium; regional environmental exposures such as air pollution, particulate matter, biologic agents and allergens, the toxicity of sand and dust; and occupational exposures such as vapors, gases, dust, and fumes.

The summarized findings of the 2020 NASEM report found that: (1) Of the 27 different respiratory systems and diseases, three respiratory symptoms, i.e., chronic persistent cough, shortness of breath (dyspnea), and wheezing, met the criteria for limited or suggestive evidence of an association with service in Southwest Asia whereas the remaining 24 conditions had inadequate or insufficient evidence to determine an association; (2) deployment to the 1990-1991 Gulf War and changes in lung function were determined to have limited or suggestive evidence of no association; and (3) many of the studies that report on these conditions were weakened by bias due to self-selection of the participants and self-reported outcomes and exposures and/or lack of control for confounders such as cigarette smoking.

The 2020 NASEM report stated that, while there was inadequate or insufficient evidence to determine an association between respiratory health outcomes and deployment to Southwest Asia, the existing studies included were limited in the available data in exposure estimation; the availability of pertinent health, physiologic, behavioral, and biomarker data, especially data collected both pre-and post-deployment; the amount of time that passed since exposure; and use of additional or alternate sources of data that might enrich analyses. The NASEM committee recommended that a new approach was needed to allow researchers to better examine and respond to whether specific respiratory outcomes are associated with deployment.

VA adheres to established internal procedure requiring it to review and respond to the recommendations in NASEM reports as outlined in VA Directive 0215, Management of Reports Issued by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. This VA Directive establishes the process for developing responses to all NASEM studies, whether legally mandated or not. VA is not obligated by statute to provide Congress with VA's response to the 2020 NASEM report.

Pursuant to the VA Directive process, VA convened a workgroup of VA subject matter experts (SMEs) in disability compensation, health care, infectious diseases, occupational and environmental medicine, public health, epidemiology, toxicology, and research. The workgroup convened in early spring of 2021 and was composed of subject matter experts from the Veterans Health Administration and the Veterans Benefits Administration. This workgroup was charged with analyzing the information presented by NASEM and informing the VA Secretary of its findings. The VA workgroup used the same management, coordination, and collaboration process in responding to NASEM reports that are undertaken and submitted because of legal mandates.

Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the 2020 NASEM report, the VA workgroup noted that NASEM focused its review on “airborne hazards encountered during service in Southwest Asia Theater of Military Operations and Afghanistan” but did not opine on the relevance of the literature regarding the potential impact of long-term general population or occupational exposure to ambient levels of particulate matter pollution in nor the mechanistic, animal and toxicologic studies. Other Federal agencies ( i.e., the Environmental Protection Agency, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the National Institutes for Health) have explored those relationships in detail. In addition, VA conducted its own review of epidemiological studies of population exposures related to cough, wheeze, and shortness of breath (dyspnea). The practice per VA Directive 0215 is that the VA workgroup on NASEM reports reviews pertinent literature that has been published during the time following the NASEM literature review and writing/publication of the report. VA identified the narrowed focus of the NASEM literature that omitted areas of inquiry that were felt to be relevant to a complete understanding of the hazards associated with respiratory outcomes.

While the 2020 NASEM report concluded there was inadequate or insufficient evidence of an association between airborne hazards exposures in the Southwest Asia theater and subsequent development of rhinitis, sinusitis, and asthma, the report did conclude that certain respiratory symptoms such as chronic persistent cough, shortness of breath (dyspnea), and wheeze did have limited or suggestive evidence of an association. Understanding the immediate needs and concerns of the Gulf War cohort and airborne exposures in service, VA reviewed the most commonly claimed chronic conditions related to airborne hazards for disability compensation benefits (as described further below) and found that asthma, sinusitis, and rhinitis were the most commonly claimed and granted respiratory conditions, and these conditions also most closely represented the symptomatology of chronic persistent cough, shortness of breath (dyspnea), and wheeze. Sleep apnea was noted as the top claimed and granted respiratory condition. However, VA has not identified literature to support inclusion of sleep apnea as a presumption at this time. VA is currently reviewing the other disabilities reviewed by NASEM in the 2020 report for consideration for potential presumptive service connection. VA will utilize a phased approach in reviewing these disabilities to explore additional studies and data.

In response to the 2020 NASEM report, VA analyzed respiratory claims data for veterans who were deployed to Southwest Asia theater of operations and other locations and compared this data to a similar cohort of veterans who served during the same period but who had never deployed. Based on a review of aggregate claims data (see table below), VA observed that the claims rates for rhinitis, sinusitis, and asthma in the combined Gulf War I and GWOT deployed cohorts were higher than the claims rates of similar non-deployed cohorts. In addition, the service-connection prevalence rates, ( i.e., percentage of cohort population for which VA finds service connection) were higher for the deployed cohorts than the non-deployed cohorts.

This increased volume of claims and the sheer number of grants within the deployed cohorts for these conditions was critical in determining that more scientific review was necessary.

The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) “is a comprehensive evaluation and synthesis of policy-relevant science aimed at characterizing exposures to ambient particulate matter (PM), and health and welfare effects associated with these exposures.” The evaluation of the science and the overarching conclusions of the ISA serves as the scientific foundation for the review of the primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter in the United States. EPA's ISA is prepared through a structured and transparent process that includes review by a formal independent panel of scientific experts (specifically, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee) and by the public. 7 The ISA uses a formal causal framework to classify the weight of the evidence for health effects.

The EPA's causal framework and approach to evaluating the scientific evidence that informs the corresponding causality determinations is outlined in the “Preamble To The Integrated Science Assessments (ISA)” available at https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/isa/recordisplay.cfm?deid=310244. Within the ISAs, the EPA evaluates and integrates evidence across scientific disciplines to assess the causal nature of relationships between PM and health or welfare effects. Specifically, during the evaluation of the health effects evidence the focus is on assessing consistency of effects within a discipline, coherence of effects across disciplines, and whether there is evidence of biologically plausibility, while also taking into consideration the exposures of studies. The 2019 PM ISAs, EPA concluded that there is a “likely to be causal relationship” between both short- ( i.e., hours up to a month) and long-term ( i.e., month to years) exposure to fine particulate matter and respiratory health effects. Their definition of a `likely to be causal relationship' is as follows, “ Evidence is sufficient to conclude that a causal relationship is likely to exist with relevant pollutant exposures. That is, the pollutant has been shown to result in health effects in studies where results are not explained by chance, confounding, and other biases, but uncertainties remain in the evidence overall.” (c.f., Table P-2). For long-term PM 2.5 exposure, the strongest evidence is for changes in lung function and lung function growth and asthma development in children. For adults there is evidence of acceleration of lung function decline, but inconsistent evidence for asthma development. Additionally, there is very limited, and inconsistent evidence of respiratory effects in healthy populations for both short- and long-term PM 2.5 exposure. The strongest evidence is from animal toxicological studies, but this is not consistent with epidemiologic and controlled human exposure studies.

VA's Health Outcomes Military Exposures (HOME) and the Airborne Hazards and Burn Pits Center of Excellence (AHBPCE) completed a literature review of asthma, sinusitis, and rhinitis that specifically considered literature on general population exposures to particulate matter in non-deployment settings. Additional relevant literature published after the 2020 NASEM report was identified, and the VA workgroup met to define search parameters and inclusion/exclusion criteria for literature review.

The VA workgroup utilized the PICOTS (Patient, Intervention/Exposure, Comparator, Outcomes, Timing, Setting) Framework (see below, Table 2—PICOTS Framework) to strengthen the evidence gathered, which was refined in consultation with the Director of the Veterans Affairs Central Office Library, who conducted the primary search. VA SMEs also performed a supplemental search to ensure completeness. To incorporate the full range of evidence, human and non-human studies were considered. “Human studies” refers to observational, case-control, cohort, and meta-analytic studies involving people. “Non-human studies” refers to experimental research not performed on people but includes in-vivo and in-vitro studies in animal models, cell lines, and donated human tissue. Such research is particularly useful for determining if specific air pollutants or a mixture thereof is related to respiratory symptoms that might reasonably be seen as precursors to or analogous with the symptoms documented in humans ( i.e., biological plausibility). Initial literature screening was performed by VA SMEs to ensure appropriateness for review as well as assignment to human and non-human categories.

Additional SMEs were recruited to critically evaluate the strengths and weakness of evidence using a semi-quantitative transparent approach that was based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) structure. Each reviewing SME was provided with instructions on the overall goals of the review, the PICOTS framework (below) as well as instructions on the scoring matrix with the GRADE structure. Each article was evaluated by at least two subject matter experts, and the aggregate results were reviewed by a panel of subject matter experts to derive consensus opinion.

The 2020 NASEM report reviewed different types of exposures such as open burn pits, emissions from the 2003 Al-Mishraq sulfur plant fire, fuels, oil-well fires, nerve agents, and depleted uranium; regional environmental exposures such as air pollution, particulate matter, biologic agents, and allergens, toxicity of sand and dusts; and occupational exposures such as vapors, gases, dusts, and fumes. The supplemental review focused on fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ), which is a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets that have a mean aerodynamic diameter ≤2.5 microns. 10 The focus on PM 2.5 was intentional for the following reasons: (1) PM 2.5 is generated by a variety of sources including smoke from open burn pits, (2) the DoD's Enhanced Particulate Matter Surveillance Program objectively measured in-theater concentrations and documented concentrations of PM 2.5 that may have exceeded military and national exposure guidelines at deployment locations, and (3) its small diameter facilitates greater deposition into the lung and potential for harmful effects. It is recognized that the source of fine particles and their resultant chemical composition are important considerations beyond particle size that should be considered yet there is a paucity of these data.

Based on the observations from many veterans and studies that described particulates in Southwest Asia, 11 VA determined that the levels of particulate matter were high in Southwest Asia and could present a health risk to service members.

As previously noted, the VA Technical Working Group identified knowledge gaps from the 2020 NASEM report and felt additional review of the literature, of relevance to service members and veterans, was warranted. In first reviewing the EPA's 2019 ISA on PM 2.5 , it was noted that the literature reviewed included those articles published through 2017. In addition, the ISA included both children and adults and had a much broader scope. The VA's supplemental review was targeted to address these knowledge gaps. Ultimately, VA's conclusions on respiratory health effects were similar to those of the EPA's 2009 and 2019 ISAs. The VA committee acknowledges that: (1) There exists a range in the strength of association between PM 2.5 exposure and the respiratory conditions of interest, and (2) most of the population epidemiological studies are based upon the assumption that chronic respiratory symptoms are a function of long-term exposure and reductions in ambient concentration lead to resolution of short-term responses, and thus are difficult to apply to the exposure scenario experienced by service members in SW Asia. Therefore, VA's own literature review is not a sufficient basis for concluding that such exposure scenarios would be expected to cause incident (or new-onset) asthma, sinusitis, and/or rhinitis secondary to exposure.

VA acknowledges that there are important differences between potential exposures experienced by deployed service members and the populations in the studies relied upon by the ISA, and that there are limitations in evidence specific to deployed service members, as discussed above. In the context of regulating potential service connection related to presumed exposure and benefits there is a strong role for policy decisions. 12 The Secretary's broad discretion weighs more strongly here than it would if the science related to the composition and duration of actual particulate matter and airborne hazard exposures of service members were more robust.

Based on the weight of the evidence considered as described above, VA presumes exposure to PM 2.5 for Gulf War veterans deployed in the Southwest Asia theater of operations, as defined in 38 CFR 3.317(e)(2) including Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the neutral zone between Iraq and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, the Gulf of Aden, the Gulf of Oman, the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Sea, and the Red Sea during the Persian Gulf War. Based on presumed PM 2.5 exposures, VA is granting a presumption of service connection for the chronic respiratory conditions of asthma, sinusitis, and rhinitis, to include rhinosinusitis, for the service periods and manifestation timelines that follow.

The presumption of PM 2.5 exposure will also include those deployed to Afghanistan, Syria, and Djibouti on or after September 19, 2001, the earliest date when service members were deployed in these locations. The literature and studies overwhelmingly show the prevalence of particulate matter due to the nature of the arid climate in these locations as well. 13 VA determined that the Southwest Asia theater of operations, Afghanistan, Syria, and Djibouti had similar arid or semi-arid climates with periods of high winds to suspend geologic dusts and regional pollutants, adhered to or a part of these dusts, though the composition of the PM varies in different regions. Therefore, VA is including Afghanistan, Syria, and Djibouti as qualifying locations for presumption of service connection based on presumed exposure to PM 2.5 .

VA's Airborne Hazards and Open Burn Pit Registry, which encourages veteran participation to help VA gather data and better understand the potential health effects of exposure to airborne hazards during military service, currently covers the Southwest Asia theater of operations, including Afghanistan, and will also expand the locations to include Syria and Uzbekistan. Expansion will be encouraged through periodic communications through the MyPay pay notifications with both active duty service members and veterans, and through press releases as well as through VA's Health Outcomes Military Exposures website ( https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/burnpits/index.asp ).

As the literature and studies overwhelmingly demonstrate the prevalence of particulate matter in these locations, VA is including Afghanistan, Syria and Djibouti in addition to the Southwest Asia theater of operations, as qualifying locations for the presumption of service connection and exposure to fine, particulate matter.

Furthermore, the VA workgroup recommended that the presumption of PM 2.5 exposure include those service members who were deployed to Uzbekistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. In March 2020, the Army Public Health Center issued, Environmental Conditions at Karshi Khanabad (K-2) Air Base, Uzbekistan, to provide information to service members and veterans on environmental exposures at the K-2 Air Base and the risk of potential long-term adverse health effects related to such deployment. 14 It noted that service members, mostly Army, Air Force and some Marines, were stationed at the air base Camp Stronghold Freedom from October 2001 to November 2005. This fact sheet referenced the results of three declassified assessments conducted by DoD, namely the Environmental Site Characterization and an Operational Health Risk Assessment completed in 2001 and follow-up Post-Deployment Occupational and Environmental Health Site Assessments completed in 2002 and 2004. The collective findings of these assessments found the K-2 Air Base often had high levels of dust and other particulate matter in the air, depending upon the season and weather conditions, but also noted significantly high levels of dust during dust storms. The fact sheet concluded that there was inconclusive evidence that there is an increased risk of chronic respiratory conditions associated with military deployment to K-2 Air Base. It was noted that DoD was collaborating with VA and independent researchers to further evaluate the potential long-term health risks related to deployment exposures.

Based on these findings regarding particulate matter exposure at the K-2 Air Base, VA will presume PM 2.5 exposure for those service members who were deployed to Uzbekistan on or after September 19, 2001. VA acknowledges that this will cover a greater geographic area and time frame than the other studies annotated in this document. However, VA believes this is a veteran-centric approach that will enhance its operational efficiencies by simplifying the work necessary for claims adjudication.

VA will continue to collaborate with DoD as directed by E.O. 13982, “Care of Veterans with Service in Uzbekistan,” executed on January 19, 2021, and published on January 25, 2021. This Executive Order requires that DoD conduct a study to assess the conditions at the K-2 Air Base, to identify any toxic substances that may have contaminated the Air Base, and to conduct an epidemiological study on potential health consequences for those deployed to K-2 Air Base. Once the studies have been completed, VA will consider the results and findings from these studies in making determinations regarding diseases subject to presumptive service connection. 15

The VA workgroup also considered the onset of asthma, rhinitis, and sinusitis after service members separated from military service in the Southwest Asia theater of operations as well as Afghanistan, Syria, Djibouti, and Uzbekistan. The consensus of the VA workgroup was that the manifestation period for these three chronic respiratory conditions was generally five to 10 years after separation from service, supported by a review of claims data, and the human and epidemiological studies showed that manifestation of these respiratory conditions did not exceed 10 years. The VA Secretary will apply the liberal manifestation period of 10 years from separation from the last period of military service that includes a qualifying period of service. VA believes that a 10-year manifestation period for eligibility for presumptive service connection for the chronic respiratory conditions of asthma, rhinitis, and sinusitis, to include rhinosinusitis, would not only allow veterans time to seek healthcare treatment and/or diagnosis for such respiratory conditions after they leave military service but would expand eligibility to more Gulf War veterans if a longer manifestation period of 10 years was designated as opposed to a shorter manifestation period, e.g., five years, which would preclude certain veterans who develop and/or are diagnosed with a chronic respiratory condition outside of this timeframe. In consideration of the length of the military operations in the Gulf War and a large number of affected service members and veterans, the 10-year manifestation period more liberally provides these veterans with the healthcare, benefits, and services they have earned.

In addition, there is no minimum time limit required for the length of military deployment. There is no set guidance on deployment and this varies widely by service: some smaller units may deploy for two weeks or less for specialized missions (special operations, construction units), while larger units may deploy for three to six months in the case of the U.S. Air Force, while some Army units have deployed in extreme cases for up to 15 months. There is no average deployment time because of these extremes.

Current VA regulations governing presumptive service connection for certain diseases such as chronic diseases, diseases associated with exposure to certain herbicide agents, and others, generally require that the presumptive disease manifest to a compensable degree ( i.e., 10-percent or more) within the applicable time limits. However, in other contexts, some adjudication regulations governing presumptive service connection, for example presumptions for certain diseases due to exposure to ionizing radiation in 38 CFR 3.311 and mustard gas in 38 CFR 3.316, as well as for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in 38 CFR 3.318, do not require the associated disability to have manifested to a compensable degree or more. VA is opting against requiring a specific level or dose of exposure to particulate matter and is instead taking the more veteran-centric approach of presuming sufficient exposure based on service in these identified regions. This approach accounts for the fact that precise or specific information on individual veterans' exposures that is needed to support more granular policy is generally not available. In addition, this approach is also consistent with some other presumptions of service connection. For example, VA does not require exposure dosage for Vietnam veterans who were presumed to have been exposed to a herbicide agent such as Agent Orange.

Thus, VA will not require that the chronic respiratory conditions of asthma, rhinitis, and sinusitis, to include rhinosinusitis, manifest to a compensable degree or more so that more Gulf War Veterans can meet the lower eligibility criteria for presumptive service connection for exposure to fine, particulate matter even at a non-compensable level, which could also make veterans eligible to receive VA health care services for that condition at no cost to themselves.

One of the VA Secretary's priorities is to address the needs of the Gulf War cohort and to address the imminent need for care, services, and benefits to these veterans that is long overdue. The VA Secretary has determined that, for the three most commonly claimed respiratory health conditions, waiting for the results of additional studies for more conclusive scientific evidence would unnecessarily delay the delivery of services and benefits to veterans who served in the Gulf War. Based on the critical need to provide immediate benefits such as disability compensation and healthcare services to veterans as well as the supplemental analysis conducted by VA on the 2020 NASEM report, the VA Secretary is establishing presumptive service connection and a presumption of exposure to fine, particulate matter for those veterans who were deployed to the Southwest Asia theater of operations as well as Afghanistan, Syria, Djibouti, or Uzbekistan and who are diagnosed with the chronic respiratory conditions of asthma, rhinitis, sinusitis, to include rhinosinusitis, as long as such conditions manifested within 10 years after separation from the last period of military service that includes a qualifying period of service.

This regulation is based on the Secretary's broad authority under 38 U.S.C. 501(a) to “prescribe all rules and regulations which are necessary or appropriate to carry out the laws administered by the Department and are consistent with those laws, including—. . . regulations with respect to the nature and extent of proof and evidence . . . in order to establish the right to benefits under such laws.” The Secretary may create presumptions for conditions based on exposure to particulate matter under Congress's broad delegation of general regulatory authority in 38 U.S.C. 501(a)(1), provided there is a rational basis for the presumptions. NOVA v. Sec'y of Veterans Affairs, 669 F.3d 1340, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“A regulation is not arbitrary or capricious if there is a `rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.' ” (quoting Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n. of the U.S. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)). For the reasons explained above, the Secretary has determined that such a rational basis exists for the chronic respiratory conditions of asthma, rhinitis, and sinusitis, to include rhinosinusitis.

VA is amending § 3.159, the regulation regarding VA's duty to assist claimants in developing their claims, specifically by adding new § 3.320 to the current subparagraph that addresses VA's duty to provide medical examinations or obtain medical opinions when it has been established that a veteran has a disease or symptoms of a disease listed in the regulations governing presumptive conditions in §§ 3.309, 3.313, 3.316, and 3.317.

VA is adding new § 3.320 to address presumptive service connection based on exposure to particulate matter for Gulf War veterans. Specifically, in new paragraph (a)(1), this provision outlines that service connection will be granted for the listed diseases for a veteran with a qualifying period of service as long as such disease manifested to any degree ( i.e., non-compensable would qualify) within 10 years from separation from the last period of military service that includes a qualifying period of service. This is based on the presumption that a veteran with a qualifying period of service was exposed to fine, particulate matter during that service. New subparagraph (a)(2) lists the three new chronic diseases for presumptive service connection as asthma, rhinitis, and sinusitis, to include rhinosinusitis. Chronic rhinosinusitis will be considered for presumptive service connection if claimed or diagnosed as related to particulate matter exposure. Since chronic rhinosinusitis is also a disease that affects the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses similar to chronic sinusitis and rhinitis, VA will adjudicate claims for chronic rhinosinusitis under the Diagnostic Code (DC) for sinusitis in 38 CFR 4.97, Schedule of ratings-respiratory system under DCs 6510-6514 as appropriate.

Moreover, these three diseases must not be seasonal or an acute allergic manifestation in nature, as pursuant to 38 CFR 3.380, “[s]easonal and other acute allergic manifestations subsiding on the absence of or removal of the allergen are generally to be regarded as acute diseases, healing without residuals.”

In the event a claimant does not specifically claim one of the three presumptive diseases by name but references symptoms of a general medical condition such as “shortness of breath” or “respiratory issues” on claims forms or applications, VA will continue to process and adjudicate such claims to include on the basis of presumptive service connection due to exposure to particulate matter. VA will review and verify the claimant's records, including records of deployment to a qualifying period of service and area. If confirmed, VA will schedule an examination (or medical opinion if/when necessary) to determine if the veteran has a diagnosis for any of the new presumptive diseases and will adjudicate the claim under new § 3.320 accordingly.

In addition, new paragraph (a)(3) provides the presumption that a veteran with a qualifying period of service was exposed to fine, particulate matter in service. And new paragraph (a)(4) establishes the qualifying period of service in Southwest Asia theater of operations as during the Persian Gulf War, as well as Afghanistan, Syria, Djibouti, or Uzbekistan on or after September 19, 2001 during the Persian Gulf War.

Lastly, new paragraph (b) provides the three circumstances under which presumptive service connection will not be granted. VA will not consider a disease to be service connected on a presumptive basis if there is affirmative evidence that shows: (1) The disease was not incurred or aggravated during a qualifying period of service; (2) the disease was caused by a supervening condition or event that happened between the most recent separation from a qualifying period of service and the onset of the disease; or (3) the disease was due to the veteran's own willful misconduct. This new paragraph (b) is consistent with current regulations governing other conditions based on presumptive service connection such as exposure to ionizing radiation, exposure to mustard gas, or based on Gulf War service and disabilities due to undiagnosed illness and medically unexplained chronic multi-symptom illnesses. See 38 CFR 3.311(g), 3.316(b), and 3.317(a)(ii)(7) and (c)(4).

On July 30, 2008, Congress passed Public Law 110-289, the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, of which section 2603 expanded eligibility of specially adapted housing benefits to veterans who are permanently and totally disabled due to severe burn injuries “as determined pursuant to regulations prescribed by the Secretary.” On December 18, 2009, VA published in the Federal Register (74 FR 67145) a proposed rule to amend §§ 3.809 and 3.809a, the provisions governing specially adapted housing and special home adaptation grants, respectively, to conform with Public Law 110-289. (RIN 2900-AN21) Particularly, VA proposed to add eligibility criteria of severe burn injuries to § 3.809a to be defined as (1) deep partial thickness burns that have resulted in contractures with limitation of motion of two or more extremities or of at least one extremity and the trunk, or (2) subdermal burns that have resulted in contracture(s) with limitation of motion of one or more extremities or the trunk. Although Public Law 110-289 did not specifically address non-dermatological severe burn injuries, VA proposed to add a third eligibility criteria of severe burn injury, defined as residuals of an inhalation injury. VA noted that “inhalation injuries can result from the same incidents that cause severe burns” and attributed the breathing of steam or “toxic inhalants such as fumes, gases, and mists present in a fire environment. Toxic inhalants comprise a variety of noxious gases and particulate matter that are capable of producing local irritation, asphyxiation, and systemic toxicity.” See 74 FR at 67147. It was also noted that a significant number of individuals with burns to the skin also have inhalational injury, and the presence of inhalational injury is a determinant of mortality. VA concluded that this third eligibility criteria for inhalational injury was a logical outgrowth of section 2306 of Public Law 110-289 that added severe burn injury as a qualifying disability for special home adaptation grants as the law made no mention of inhalation injury.

Taken together, the fact that inhalation injury arose from legislation that only established severe burn injury as a qualifying injury for specially adapted housing and special home adaptation grants and that VA's explanation for adding inhalation injury consistently describes such injury as attributable to combustion or fire environments and events that could cause severe burn injuries, VA concluded that the inhalation injury provision of § 3.809a would only apply to cases where veterans could also be exposed to possible severe burn injury ( e.g., firefighting, escaping a burning building, etc.)

With regard to inhalation injuries for special home adaptation grants and PM exposure, VA concludes that the majority of these sources of particulate matter would not immediately put veterans in danger of suffering severe burn injury as particulate matter is ubiquitous in the environment. Therefore, VA will not automatically presume that anyone who is permanently and totally disabled due to a respiratory illness as a result of exposure to particulate matter will automatically qualify for special home adaptation grant (per 38 CFR 3.809a) based on the eligibility criteria of inhalation injury. Instead, the evidentiary record must show that the respiratory illness (or residuals) were due to an event where the possibility of severe burn injury may have occurred.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3), VA has found that there is good cause to publish this rule without prior opportunity for comment and to publish this rule with an immediate effective date. It is necessary to immediately implement this interim final rule in order to carry out the VA Secretary's decision to address the needs of service members and veterans who have been exposed to airborne hazards, i.e., particulate matter, due to their service in the Southwest Asia theater of operations, Afghanistan, Syria, Djibouti, or Uzbekistan. Delay in the implementation of this rule would be contrary to the public interest.

The new presumptions are entirely pro-claimant in nature. And because VA has a sufficient scientific basis to support the new presumptions, continuing to deny claims that could be granted under the presumption while rulemaking is ongoing would unnecessarily deprive veterans and beneficiaries of benefits to which they would otherwise be entitled and prolong their inability to timely receive benefits. Additionally, this could create risks to beneficiaries' welfare and health that would be exacerbated by any additional delay in implementation. Due to the complexity and the historical scientific uncertainty surrounding these issues of airborne hazard exposures and disease, many veterans who will be affected by this rule have long borne the burden and expense of their disabilities while awaiting the results of research and investigation. Under these circumstances, imposing further delay on their receipt of benefits, potentially at the risk of their welfare and health, is contrary to the public interest.

Further, the Secretary's decision to extend certain VA-administered benefits to service members and veterans who have been exposed to airborne hazards, i.e., particulate matter, due to their service in the Southwest Asia theater of operations, Afghanistan, Syria, Djibouti, or Uzbekistan requires immediate effect to help them access these benefits without undue delay, particularly given that the COVID-19 pandemic, with its sustained adverse economic consequences, may have reduced or limited their personal resources. For veterans that are not otherwise eligible for health care, these presumptions could result in needed health care eligibility based on service connection. For this reason, delay in implementation of this rule would be contrary to the public interest.

5 U.S.C. 553(d) also requires a 30-day delayed effective date following publication of a rule, except for “(1) a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction; (2) interpretative rules and statements of policy; or (3) as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” Pursuant to section 553(d)(3), the Secretary finds that there is good cause to make the rule effective upon publication, for the reasons discussed above.

For the foregoing reasons, and as explained in further detail in the interim final rule, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs is issuing this rule as an interim final rule with an immediate effective date. However, VA will consider and address comments that are received within 60 days of the date this interim final rule is published in the Federal Register .

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is an economically significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. The Regulatory Impact Analysis associated with this rulemaking can be found as a supporting document at www.regulations.gov.

The Secretary hereby certifies that this interim final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). The certification is based on the fact that only individuals, not small entities or businesses, will be affected. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 do not apply.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This interim final rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.

This interim final rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program numbers and titles for this rule are 64.101, Burial Expenses Allowance for Veterans; 64.102, Compensation for Service-Connected Deaths for Veterans' Dependents; 64.104, Pension for Non-Service-Connected Disability for Veterans; 64.105, Pension to Veterans, Surviving Spouses, and Children; 64.109, Veterans Compensation for Service-Connected Disability; and 64.110, Veterans Dependency and Indemnity Compensation for Service-Connected Death.

This regulatory action is a major rule under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801-808, because it may result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1), VA will submit to the Comptroller General and to Congress a copy of this regulation and the Regulatory Impact Analysis associated with the regulation. However, for the reasons explained above, VA has found that there is good cause to publish this rule with an immediate effective date, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 808(2).

Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on July 12, 2021 and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Veterans Affairs amends 38 CFR part 3 as set forth below:

On March 11, 2021 (86 FR 8734), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the District of Columbia. In the NPRM, EPA proposed approval of the District's NNSR Certification for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The formal SIP revision was submitted by the District on May 5, 2020. Specifically, the District certified that its existing NNSR program, covering the District portion of the Washington, DC-MD-VA Nonattainment Area (Washington Area) for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, is at least as stringent as the requirements at 40 CFR 51.165, as amended by the final rule titled “Implementation of the 2015 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: Nonattainment Area State Implementation Plan Requirements” (SIP Requirements Rule), for ozone and its precursors. See 83 FR 62998 (December 6, 2018).

On October 1, 2015, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.070 parts per million (ppm). 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015). Under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 50.19, the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS is attained when the three-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient air quality ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.070 ppm.

Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that is violating the NAAQS based on the three most recent years of ambient air quality data at the conclusion of the designation process. The Washington Area was classified as marginal nonattainment for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS on June 4, 2018 (effective August 3, 2018) using 2014-2016 ambient air quality data. 83 FR 25776. On December 6, 2018, EPA issued the final SIP Requirements Rule, which establishes the requirements that state, tribal, and local air quality management agencies must meet as they develop implementation plans for areas where air quality exceeds the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 80 FR 65291, October 26, 2015. Areas that were designated as marginal ozone nonattainment areas are required to attain the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS no later than August 3, 2021. 40 CFR 51.1303 and 83 FR 10376, March 9, 2018.

Based on initial nonattainment designations for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, as well as the December 6, 2018 final SIP Requirements Rule, the District was required to develop a SIP revision addressing certain CAA requirements for the Washington Area, and submit to EPA a NNSR Certification SIP or SIP revision no later than 36 months after the effective date of area designations for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS ( i.e., August 3, 2021). See 83 FR 62998 (December 6, 2018). EPA is approving the District's May 5, 2020 NNSR Certification SIP revision for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

This rule is specific to the District's NNSR requirements. NNSR is a preconstruction review permit program that applies to new major stationary sources or major modifications at existing sources located in a nonattainment area. The specific NNSR requirements for the ozone NAAQS are located in 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.165.

The District's SIP approved NNSR program, established in Chapters 1 (Air Quality—General Rules) and 2 (Air Quality—General and Nonattainment Area Permits) in Title 20 of the District of Columbia Municipal Regulations (DCMR), applies to the construction and modification of major stationary sources in nonattainment areas. In its May 5, 2020 SIP revision, the District certifies that the versions of 20 DCMR Chapters 1 and 2 approved in the SIP are at least as stringent as the Federal NNSR requirements for the Washington Area. EPA last approved revisions to the District's major NNSR SIP on July 5, 2019. In that action, EPA approved revisions to the District's SIP which made DOEE's NNSR program consistent with Federal requirements. 84 FR 32072, July 5, 2019. No public comments were received on the NPRM.

EPA is approving the District's May 5, 2020 SIP revision addressing the NNSR requirements for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Washington Area. EPA has concluded that the District's submission fulfills the 40 CFR 51.1114 revisions requirement, meets the requirements of CAA section 110 and 172 and the minimum SIP requirements of 40 CFR 51.165.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 4, 2021. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.

This action pertaining to the District's NNSR program and the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).).

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:

The Fairbanks District Office building is located within a densely developed, mixed residential/commercial area of Fairbanks, Alaska, on BLM-managed public lands within the boundaries of the Eastern Interior Field Office along the bank of the Chena River. In addition to visitors to these offices, the public often uses the open space adjacent to the office building to picnic, walk dogs, or access the Chena River. Visitors encounter inconsistent rules regarding appropriate conduct at the Fairbanks District Office administrative site. This inconsistency hampers the BLM's ability to provide a safe visitor experience and minimize conflicts among users.

These final supplementary rules establish a consistent set of rules for the Fairbanks District Office administrative site. Absent such rules, BLM Law Enforcement Rangers face impediments to preventing acts that compromise public health and safety, such as open fires in proximity to office buildings, overnight/long-term occupancy, unattended domestic animals, and unattended vehicles. The highly urbanized nature of the Fairbanks District Office administrative site, and its location in Class C-E airspace on final approach to Fairbanks International Airport as well as the adjacent State Division of Forestry-Interagency Fire helipad, make some uses of public lands inappropriate; for example, no person may operate an aerial drone in a manner that interferes with neighboring Forestry helipads (14 CFR 107.43). In addition, enforcing State laws and/or borough ordinances is administratively more difficult for BLM Law Enforcement Rangers than enforcing established BLM rules. The BLM is establishing these supplementary rules under the authority of 43 CFR 8365.1-6, which authorizes BLM State Directors to establish supplementary rules for the protection of persons, property, and public lands and resources. There are currently no existing supplementary rules for the Fairbanks District Office administrative site. The administrative site is all property and lands encompassed within the land parcels managed by the BLM within the Fairbanks North Star Borough, legal address 222 University Avenue, Fairbanks, AK 99709, described as:

You may obtain a map of the Fairbanks District Office administrative site in Fairbanks, Alaska, by contacting the office (see ADDRESSES ) or by accessing the following web page. https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/71962/510 .

In general, the BLM uses supplementary rules for permanent, site-specific regulations where general BLM regulations do not meet the specific management needs of a site's unique characteristics. Most common are rules for recreation areas or administrative sites, such as the Fairbanks District Office administrative site. These final supplementary rules apply to 11.41 acres of BLM-managed public lands comprising the BLM Fairbanks District Office administrative site. These final rules address general public conduct and public safety concerns at the BLM facility.

BLM Law Enforcement Rangers will enforce rules only in relation to BLM-managed lands above the mean high water line of the Chena River. Nothing in these final rules imparts any new or special authority or jurisdiction to BLM Law Enforcement Rangers on or within the navigable waters of the State of Alaska or airspace managed by the Federal Aviation Administration. The final rules seek to minimize conflicts with the Fairbanks District Office administrative site's year-round heavy use by employees, volunteers, school groups, contractors, and the public. During the drafting of these rules, which include provisions that address hunting and trapping, the BLM consulted with the Fairbanks Region of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, which did not object. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has closed the Chena River to beaver trapping downstream from its confluence with the Little Chena River by State trapping regulations, and the closure area encompasses the segment of the River's riparian corridor adjoining the BLM Fairbanks District Office administrative site.

Supplementary rules 3-4, 7, and 10-11 are consistent with existing State laws or regulations and municipal ordinances and will facilitate cooperation between BLM Law Enforcement Rangers and local or State authorities. Supplementary rules 1, 5, and 8-9 are new. Supplementary rules 2, 6, and 12-13 implement minor modifications or revisions to existing BLM regulations in order to improve enforcement and better align with the Fairbanks administrative site's urban environment.

The BLM published proposed supplementary rules in the Federal Register on November 21, 2017 (82 FR 55340). Publication of the proposed rules started a 60-day public comment period that ended on January 22, 2018. The BLM received 80 written comments on the proposed rule. One comment from a member of the public was supportive of prohibiting hunting and trapping at the administrative site.

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game asked for clarification that the rule would not prohibit the Department from issuing permits for the harvest of nuisance beavers from the Administrative site. The Department has issued such permits along the Chena River, near the Administrative site in the past. The BLM did not make any changes to the supplementary rules in response to Alaska Department of Fish and Game's comment because the rule allows the BLM to provide exemptions for this type of activity. Persons, agencies, municipalities or companies holding a valid special-use permit from the BLM and operating within the scope of their permit are exempt from any of the supplementary rules that are in conflict with the permit. Additionally, the Authorized Officer has discretion to authorize exemptions from the supplementary rules. Therefore, the BLM could exempt a permittee authorized by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to harvest nuisance beavers from the Administrative site from these supplementary rules either by issuing a BLM special-use permit or by issuing a specific exemption.

The remaining comments are not pertinent to these supplementary rules. The BLM has not revised the rules in response to them.

On its own initiative, the BLM revised the proposed supplementary rules in order to clarify, simplify, and remove duplicative or unnecessary rules. Through this process, the BLM reduced the number of rules from 27 to 13. For example, the proposed rule included three prohibited acts related to weapons and/or firearms. The BLM determined that these were duplicative and that prohibited act 3 is sufficient. The BLM clarified that the definition of “camping” is limited to lands above mean high water on the Chena River. The BLM revised the definition of “explosives” in order to update the definition's reference to a list of explosive materials published and revised at least annually in the Federal Register by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant rules. These supplementary rules are not a significant regulatory action and are not subject to review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs under Executive Order 12866.

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

These supplementary rules do not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 is not required because the BLM reached a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Through an interdisciplinary review, the BLM Eastern Interior Field Office prepared an Environmental Assessment (DOI-BLM-AK-F020-2017-0006-EA) and made it available on the BLM Eastern Interior Field Office NEPA register for public inspection on February 14, 2017, along with a draft FONSI. The Environmental Assessment and draft FONSI were available for public review on the BLM NEPA register for 30 days. The BLM's State Office in Alaska did not receive any comments. The Eastern Interior Field Manager signed a Decision Record to move forward with the proposed supplementary rule on March 17, 2017. These documents are available online at https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/71962/510 .

These supplementary rules will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ).

These supplementary rules do not comprise a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. These supplementary rules:

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

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

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

These supplementary rules merely establish rules of conduct for use of certain public lands and do not affect commercial or business activities of any kind.

These supplementary rules do not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. These rules do not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) is not required.

These supplementary rules do not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630. These rules do not address property rights in any form, and do not cause the impairment of one's property rights. A takings implication assessment is not required.

Under the criteria in section 1 of Executive Order 13132, these rules do not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. These rules do not conflict with any Alaska State law or regulation. A federalism summary impact statement is not required.

These supplementary rules comply with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Specifically, these rules:

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

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

The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes, through a commitment to consultation with Indian tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. The BLM's State Office in Alaska has evaluated these supplementary rules under the Department's consultation policy and under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and has determined that they have no substantial direct effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and that consultation under the Department's tribal consultation policy is not required. These rules do not affect Indian resource, religious, or property rights.

These final supplementary rules will not impede cooperative conservation. The process used to develop these rules considered the interests of persons with ownership or other legally recognized interests in land; properly accommodated local participation in the process; and are consistent with protecting public health and safety.

The BLM did not conduct or use a study, experiment, or survey to disseminate information to the public in developing the proposed or final supplementary rules.

These supplementary rules do not comprise a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

These supplementary rules do not contain information collection requirements, and a submission to the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act is not required.

The principal author of these supplementary rules is Jonathan Priday, Bureau of Land Management Law Enforcement Ranger for the Eastern Interior Field Office. For the reasons stated in the preamble, and under the authority of 43 CFR 8365.1-6, the State Director establishes supplementary rules for public lands managed by the BLM in Fairbanks, Alaska to read as follows:

1. Brandish means to point, shake, or wave menacingly or to exhibit in an ostentatious manner.

2. Camping means erecting a tent or shelter of natural or synthetic material, preparing a sleeping bag or other bedding material, parking a motor vehicle, motor home, or trailer, or mooring a vessel above mean high water line of the Chena River for the apparent purpose of overnight occupancy.

3. Command and control of an animal means that the animal returns immediately to and remains by the side of the handler in response to a verbal command. An animal is not under command and control if the animal approaches or remains within 10 feet of any person other than the handler, unless that person has communicated to the handler by spoken word or gesture that he or she consents to the presence of the animal.

4. Explosives means any chemical compound, mixture, or device, the primary or common purpose of which is to function by explosion; the term includes, but is not limited to, dynamite and other high explosives, black powder, tannerite, ammonium perchlorate, ammonium nitrate, blasting caps, pellet powder, initiating explosives, detonators, safety fuses, squibs, detonating cord, igniter cord, and igniters. The term also includes materials on the list published and revised at least annually in the Federal Register by the U.S. Department of Justice pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 841(d) and 27 CFR 555.23.

5. Firearm or other projectile shooting device means all firearms, air rifles, pellet and BB guns, spring guns, bows or crossbows and arrows, slings, paint ball markers, other instruments that can propel a projectile (such as a bullet, dart, or pellet) by combustion, air pressure, gas pressure, or other means, or any instrument that can be loaded with and fire blank cartridges.

6. Motorized vehicle means a vehicle that is propelled by a motor or engine, such as a car, truck, off-highway vehicle, motorcycle, or snowmobile.

7. Street legal vehicle means a motorized vehicle that meets standards and requirements identified in Alaska Administrative Code Title 13 and Alaska Statute 28—Motor Vehicles.

8. Tether means to restrain an animal by tying to any object or structure by any means, including without limitation a chain, rope, cord, leash, or running line. Tethering does not include using a leash to walk an animal.

9. Fairbanks District Office administrative site means the parcels located at Fairbanks Meridian, Alaska, T. 1 S., R. 1 W., sec. 7, lots 63 and 69. The area described aggregates 11.41 acres.

Unless otherwise authorized by the BLM, the following actions are prohibited on lands included within the Fairbanks District Office administrative site:

1. Unauthorized overnight occupancy, use, camping, or parking. Overnight is defined as anytime between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.;

2. Starting or maintaining a fire except in approved devices;

3. Using, carrying, or brandishing weapons in violation of Alaska State and/or Federal law;

4. Failing to properly supervise pets or domestic animals as defined below:

a. Failing to restrain pets or domestic animals at all times. Leashes may not exceed six (6) feet in length.

b. Failing to immediately remove or dispose of in a sanitary manner all pet or domestic animal waste;

c. Failing to prevent a pet from harassing, molesting, or injuring humans, domesticated animals, or wildlife;

d. Leaving unattended and/or tethered domestic animals, except for animals that are inside passenger vehicles;

5. Launching or operating drones or other aerial unmanned vehicles;

6. Possessing or using fireworks and/or explosives;

7. Parking a motorized vehicle in violation of posted restrictions;

8. Leaving property unattended in excess of 24 hours;

9. Hunting or trapping;

10. Disorderly conduct as defined in Alaska Statute 11.61.110;

11. Indecent exposure as defined in Alaska Statute 11.41.458 and/or 11.41.460;

12. Cutting or gathering green trees or parts, or removing down or standing dead wood for any purpose;

13. Unauthorized access to or use of government or employee-owned structures or vehicles.

The following persons are exempt from these supplementary rules: Any Federal, State, local, and/or military employee acting within the scope of their duties; members of any organized rescue or fire-fighting force performing an official duty; and persons, agencies, municipalities or companies holding an existing valid special-use permit and operating within the scope of their permit.

Any person who violates any of these supplementary rules may be tried before a United States Magistrate and fined in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3571, imprisoned for no more than 12 months under 43 U.S.C. 1733(a) and 43 CFR 8360.0-7, or both. In accordance with 43 CFR 8365.1-7, State or local officials may also impose penalties for violations of Alaska law.

The Coast Guard published the 2012 Liquid Chemical Categorization Updates interim rule on August 16, 2013 (Volume 78 of the Federal Register (FR) at Page 50147). We published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) on October 22, 2015 (80 FR 64191) and published a final rule on April 17, 2020 (85 FR 21660). On May 8, 2020, we published a correcting amendment to that final rule (85 FR 27308).

During development of the May 8, 2020, amendment, the Coast Guard identified errors that prompted a more extensive review. That review has resulted in this correcting amendment, which, among other corrections, re-alphabetizes certain lists of chemicals, removes duplicate chemicals, and resolves minor typographical errors such as italicization. The interim rule, the SNPRM, the final rule, the May 2020 correction, and this document all share the same docket number.

As the errors are not substantive, and correcting them aligns the final text with the stated purpose of the rulemaking, the Coast Guard finds that additional notice and opportunity for public comment is unnecessary under Title 5 of the United States Code (U.S.C.), Section 553(b). For the same reasons, and to forestall any confusion caused by incorrect text, the Coast Guard finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) to make the corrected text effective upon publication in the Federal Register .

Accordingly, 46 CFR parts 30, 150, and 153 are corrected by making the following correcting amendments:

Therefore, the Coast Guard amends 46 CFR parts 30, 150, and 153 as follows.

The proposed rule was published at 86 FR 22842 on April 29, 2021. The Petitioner filed comments in support of the petition, as required by the Commission's rules, reaffirming its commitment to apply for channel 26 and if authorized, to build a station promptly. No other comments were filed. We believe the public interest would be served by allotting channel 26 at Eagle River, Wisconsin. Eagle River (population 1,398) clearly qualifies for community of license status for allotment purposes. In addition, the proposal would result in a second local service to Eagle River under the Commission's third allotment priority. Moreover, the allotment is consistent with the minimum geographic spacing requirements for new DTV allotments in the Commission's rules, and the allotment point complies with the rules as the entire community of Eagle River is encompassed by the 48 dBμ contour. The Commission obtained Canadian concurrence for the allotment.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MB Docket No. 21-157; RM-11902; DA 21-920, adopted July 27, 2021, and released July 28, 2021. The full text of this document is available for download at https://www.fcc.gov/edocs. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

This document does not contain information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to this proceeding.

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

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as follows:

Atlantic tunas fisheries are managed under the authority of ATCA (16 U.S.C. 971 et seq. ) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. ). The 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and its amendments are implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 635. Section 9(d) of ATCA, 16 U.S.C. 971g(d)(2), states that regulations promulgated to implement recommendations of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) shall apply within the boundaries of any state bordering the Convention area (the Atlantic Ocean and adjacent seas) if the Secretary of Commerce, after notice and an opportunity for the state to request a formal hearing, determines that such state does not implement regulations consistent with ICCAT recommendations or if state regulations are less restrictive than the Federal regulations or are not effectively enforced. For Atlantic tunas, section 9(d) of ATCA is implemented in the Atlantic HMS regulations at 50 CFR 635.1(b). Atlantic tunas regulations in part 635 include open and closed seasons, retention limits, size limits, authorized gears and gear restrictions, and permitting and reporting requirements, among others. Atlantic tunas managed under the regulations in part 635 are bluefin, bigeye, albacore, yellowfin, and skipjack tunas.

The proposed rule published on April 26, 2021 (86 FR 22006). Additional background on this rulemaking can be found in that proposed rule and is not repeated here. The comment period for the proposed rule closed on June 10, 2021.

This final rule adds Maine to the list of states at § 635.1(b), making Federal Atlantic tunas regulations at 50 CFR part 635 applicable within Maine state waters. In reviewing Maine marine resource laws and regulations regarding tuna fishing in state waters and based on consideration of public comments, NMFS has determined that application of Federal regulations in state waters is warranted, consistent with the State's request and the ATCA criteria. The ATCA criteria require the Secretary of Commerce, after notice and an opportunity for the State to request a formal hearing, to determine whether applicable states implement regulations consistent with ICCAT recommendations and if state regulations are less restrictive than the Federal regulations or are not effectively enforced. NMFS determined that the State does not meet the criteria, particularly given the State's communication that it can no longer ensure that state regulations are consistent with the Federal regulations on an ongoing basis. The State of Maine did not request a formal hearing for this action although NMFS held a public webinar to collect public comment on May 14, 2021.

This rule will provide regulatory consistency; enhance enforcement of season closures, retention limits, size limits, and other Federal tunas regulations in Maine state waters; and address regulation given the State of Maine's observation of increased commercial tuna fishing activity in state waters. This change also will more directly ensure that any tunas landed in state waters are reported in compliance with regulations implementing ICCAT requirements.

NMFS did not receive written comments on the proposed rule but did receive a comment during the public webinar. NMFS summarizes and responds to the comment below.

Comment 1: MEDMR commented that this action would ensure the long-term viability of their fleet and shore side businesses and ensure sustainable management of the tuna fisheries. MEDMR reiterated their request for this regulatory change and their lack of capacity to stay in sync with the highly dynamic Federal tuna management regulations.

Response: NMFS agrees that Atlantic bluefin tuna management is dynamic, and NMFS agrees that implementation of Federal regulations in Maine state waters will better ensure that tuna fishing activities in Maine state waters are consistent with Federal management measures such as open and closed seasons, retention limits, size limits, authorized gears and gear restrictions, and permitting and reporting requirements. This will simplify and help ensure sustainable management within the ranges of Atlantic tunas stocks.

The final rule contains no changes from the proposed rule.

The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP and its amendments, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, and other applicable laws.

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

This final rule does not include any change to a collection of information requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The existing collection of information requirements continue to apply under the following OMB Control Numbers: 0648-0327 Atlantic HMS Permit Family of Forms, 0648-0328 Atlantic HMS Recreational Landings Reports, and 0648-0371 HMS Vessel Logbooks and Cost-Earnings Reports.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 635 is amended as follows:

NMFS and the Council manage the Hawaii shallow-set and deep-set longline fisheries and the America Samoa longline fishery under the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific (FEP). The implementing Federal regulations for these fisheries include a suite of conservation and management requirements, including daily catch and effort reporting. The current system of collecting, collating, storing, and entering paper logbook data manually is costly, inefficient, and prone to delays and errors. To correct these inefficiencies, NMFS will require the use of electronic logbooks for vessels with Federal permits for the Hawaii longline fisheries, and Class C and D Federal permits for the American Samoa longline fishery.

Vessel operators will be required to use a NMFS-certified electronic logbook to record catch, effort, location, and other information, and submit it within 24 hours of the completion of a fishing day. In the event of technology malfunction, NMFS will require that logbook data be submitted on paper or electronically within 72 hours of the end of the affected fishing trip.

After this rule's effective date, the requirements will apply to an individual permit holder after NMFS notifies the permit holder of the requirement to submit records electronically and after NMFS assigns an electronic logbook to the vessel. NMFS is responsible for purchasing, providing, and maintaining the tablets, software, and data transmission at no cost to fishery participants. In addition to providing the electronic logbooks, NMFS will provide vessel operators with individual user accounts and train them to use the system properly.

Additional background information on this action is in the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on June 9, 2021 (86 FR 30582); we do not repeat it here.

On June 9, 2021, NMFS published a proposed rule for public comment (86 FR 30582). The public comment period ended on July 9, 2021. NMFS received comments from two individuals generally supporting the proposed action. The commenters noted that electronic logbooks are effective in reducing data recording and processing errors, and related agency burden.

There are no changes in this final rule.

Pursuant to section 304(b)(3) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the FEP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. NMFS received no comments regarding this certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

This final rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This rule revises and seeks to extend by 3 years the existing requirements for the collection of information under OMB Control Number 0648-0214 Pacific Islands Logbook Family of Forms by requiring the use of electronic logbooks in Hawaii pelagic longline fisheries and on Class C and D vessels in the American Samoa pelagic longline fishery. A 60-day Federal Register notice published on May 25, 2021, provided notification of our intent to extend this information collection (86 FR 28082). This revision is not expected to affect the number of respondents or anticipated responses and is expected to reduce the number of burden hours and burden cost to fishermen. The public reporting burden for completing an electronic logbook form for a completed fishing day is estimated to average 15 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

We invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be submitted on the following website: www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by using the search function and entering either the title of the collection or the OMB Control Number 0648-0214.

Notwithstanding any other provisions of the law, no person is required to respond or, nor shall any person by subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 665 as follows:

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management 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 2021 blackspotted and rougheye rockfish TAC in the CAI/WAI of the BSAI is 169 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2021 and 2022 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (86 FR 11449, February 25, 2021). In accordance with § 679.20(d)(2), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the 2021 blackspotted and rougheye rockfish TAC in the CAI/WAI of the BSAI has been reached. Therefore, NMFS is requiring that blackspotted and rougheye rockfish in the CAI/WAI of the BSAI be treated in the same manner as a prohibited species, as described under § 679.21(a), for the remainder of the year, except blackspotted and rougheye rockfish species in the CAI/WAI caught by catcher vessels using hook-and-line, pot, or jig gear as described in § 679.20(j).

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 679, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be 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 delay the prohibited retention of blackspotted and rougheye rockfish in the CAI/WAI of the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of July 30, 2021.

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA 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.

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 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 parts 600 and 679.

The 2021 total allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific ocean perch in the West Yakutat District of the GOA is 1,705 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2021 and 2022 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (86 FR 10184, February 19, 2021).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the 2021 TAC of Pacific ocean perch in the West Yakutat District of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 1,605 mt, and is setting aside the remaining 100 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific ocean perch in the West Yakutat District of the GOA. While this closure is effective the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 679, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be 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 delay the closure of directed fishing of Pacific ocean perch in the West Yakutat district of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of July 30, 2021.

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA 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.