Comments Invited

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2022-0987; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-01416-R” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposal because of those comments.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Stephanie Sunderbruch, Aerospace Engineer, Safety Risk Management Section, Systems Policy Branch, Policy & Innovation Division, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-4659; email Stephanie.L.Sunderbruch@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2021-0282, dated December 17, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0282), to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters (AH), formerly Eurocopter and Aerospatiale, Model AS 350 B, AS 350 BA, AS 350 BB, AS 350 B1, AS 350 B2, AS 350 B3, AS 350 D, AS 355 E, AS 355 F, AS 355 F1, AS 355 F2, AS 355 N, and AS 355 NP helicopters, all serial numbers. EASA advises that an occurrence was reported where, during an inspection of a TRH pitch change spider, excessive play in the assembly and excessive wear on its parts were detected, which was due to an unwanted rotating motion. This condition, if not addressed, could result in loss of the TRH pitch change control and loss of control of the helicopter.

Accordingly, EASA AD 2021-0282 requires a one-time check (inspection) of the nut for correct installation, accomplishing a black paint index marking, 2 to 5 mm wide, on the rotating spider and on the bearing spacer of the TRH spider pitch change unit, repetitive checks (inspections) of the marking alignment, and depending on the findings, accomplishment of additional inspections and corrective actions. The additional inspections include inspecting the TRH spider pitch change unit for corrosion; inspecting for rotation and wear on the faces of the bushes; visually inspecting the rotating plate and the rotating plate threads for damage; and inspecting the TRH spider pitch change unit if the mark is misaligned. The corrective actions include removing parts with corrosion from service; replacing bushes that rotate or have wear; and replacing damaged rotating plates. EASA AD 2021-0282 also specifies certain procedures for installation of the affected TRH spider pitch change unit.

These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA about the unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA is proposing this AD after evaluating all known relevant information and determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type designs.

The FAA reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. AS350-05.01.03, for Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, and AS350D helicopters and Airbus Helicopters ASB No. AS355-05.00.86, for Model AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters, both Revision 0 and dated December 16, 2021, which include Figure 1 that identifies the position of the TRH pitch change unit and of the bearing spacer to be marked with a 2 to 5 mm wide black paint index mark. The service information also specifies procedures for inspecting the condition and installation of the nut; and inspecting the application and alignment of the black index mark on the TRH pitch change unit and the bearing spacer.

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 also reviewed, Airbus Helicopters Mechanical Repair Manual AS350 65-20-00-713, dated March 29, 2017, and Airbus Aircraft Maintenance Manual AS350 65-21-00, 4-9b, dated May 16, 2019, which specify disassembly and reassembly information for the TRH pitch change unit.

This proposed AD would require, for helicopters with certain part-numbered TRH spider pitch change units installed, inspecting for correct installation of the nut; marking a 2 to 5 mm wide black paint index mark to identify the position of certain parts; and after the initial marking, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 10 hours time in service, visually inspecting the alignment of the marking; and additional inspections and corrective actions if necessary. Additionally, this proposed AD would allow an affected part to be installed on a helicopter, if certain requirements of this proposed AD are met.

EASA AD 2021-0282 applies to Model AS350BB helicopters, whereas this proposed AD would not because that model is not FAA-type certificated. EASA AD 2021-0282 requires accomplishing a certain inspection using a magnifying lens, whereas this proposed AD would require using a 5X or higher power magnifying glass to inspect instead.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 967 helicopters of U.S. Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD.

Inspecting the nut for correct installation would take about 0.25 work-hour for an estimated cost of $21 per helicopter and up to $20,307 for the U.S. fleet.

Inspecting the alignment of the marking would take about 0.10 work-hour for an estimated cost of $8.50 per helicopter per inspection and up to $8,219.50 for the U.S. fleet per inspection.

Marking the position of the TRH pitch change unit with black paint would take about 0.25 work-hour for an estimated cost of $21 per helicopter and $20,307 for the U.S. fleet.

If required, inspecting the TRH spider pitch change unit for corrosion, inspecting the faces of the bushes for rotation and wear, and inspecting the rotating plate and rotating plate threads for damage would take about 13 work-hours for an estimated cost of $1,105 per helicopter.

If required, replacing the bushes would take about 1 work-hour and parts would cost about $5,918, for an estimated cost of $6,003 per replacement.

If required, replacing the rotating plate would take about 1 work-hour and parts would cost about $27,375 for an estimated cost of $27,460 per replacement.

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.

The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

(3) Would 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 proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Comments Invited

The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2022-0986; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-01440-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposal because of those comments.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, FAA, International Validation Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-3225; email dan.rodina@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The FAA issued AD 2000-20-15, Amendment 39-11926 (65 FR 60349, October 11, 2000) (AD 2000-20-15), for certain Airbus SAS Model A300 and A300-600 series airplanes. AD 2000-20-15 requires a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection to detect cracking of the rear fittings of fuselage frame FR40 at stringer 27, and repetitive inspections or repair, as applicable. In lieu of accomplishing the repetitive inspections, AD 2000-20-15 specifies a modification that would allow the inspection to be deferred for a certain period of time. The FAA issued AD 2000-20-15 to address fatigue cracking of the rear fittings of fuselage frame FR40 at stringer 27, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

Since the FAA issued AD 2000-20-15, the average flight time (AFT) of Model A300-600 airplanes has changed. It was determined that the existing inspection compliance times must be reduced.

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued AD 2021-0288, dated December 21, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0288) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A300 B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203, B4-2C, B4-103, B4-120, B4-203, B4-220, C4-203, and F4-203 airplanes; and certain Airbus SAS Model A300 B4-603, B4-622, and B4-622R airplanes; Model A300 B4-605R series airplanes; Model C4-620 airplanes; and Model F4-605R airplanes. Model A300 B4-120, B4-220, C4-203, C4-620, and F4-203 airplanes are not certificated by the FAA and are not included on the U.S. type certificate data sheet; this proposed AD therefore does not include those airplanes in the applicability.

This proposed AD was prompted by cracking of the rear fittings of fuselage frame FR40 at stringer 27, and a determination that reduced compliance times are necessary. The FAA is proposing this AD to address fatigue cracking of the rear fittings of fuselage frame FR40 at stringer 27, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. See the MCAI for additional background information.

EASA AD 2021-0288 specifies procedures for repetitive inspections of the rear fittings of fuselage frame FR40 at stringer 27 for cracking, and repair of any cracking. 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.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

This proposed AD would retain all of the requirements of AD 2000-20-15, but would reduce the compliance times and remove airplanes from the applicability. This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2021-0288 described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.

In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2021-0288 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2021-0288 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2021-0288 does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA AD 2021-0288. Service information required by EASA AD 2021-0288 for compliance will be available at www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0986 after the FAA final rule is published.

The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 67 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

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

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.

The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 proposed regulation:

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

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

(3) Would 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 proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Indianapolis Executive Airport, Indianapolis, IN; Kokomo Municipal Airport, Kokomo, IN; Logansport/Cass County Airport, Logansport, IN, and Peru Municipal Airport, Peru, IN, both contained within the Kokomo, IN, airspace legal description; McKinney Field, Marion, IN; and Sheridan Airport, Sheridan, IN, to support instrument flight rule operations at these airports.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2022-0871/Airspace Docket No. 22-AGL-27.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by:

Amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Indianapolis Executive Airport, Indianapolis, IN, by updating the header of the airspace legal description from “Indianapolis Executive Airport, IN” to “Indianapolis, IN” to comply with changes to FAA Order JO 7400.2N, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters; removing the cities from the associated airport and heliports to comply with changes to FAA Order JO 7400.2N; updating the names of Clarion North Medical Center Heliport (previously Clarian North Medical Center Heliport), Carmel, IN, and Methodist Hospital of Indiana Inc. Heliport (previously Methodist Hospital of Indiana), Indianapolis, IN, to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; removing the point in space geographic coordinates listed in the airspace legal description as they are listed in the header of the airspace legal description and are redundant; and removing the exclusionary language from the airspace legal description as it is not required;

Amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.7-mile (decreased from a 7-mile) radius of Kokomo Municipal Airport, Kokomo, IN; amending the extension northeast of Kokomo Municipal Airport to within 3 (decreased from 4) miles each side of the 045° bearing from the Kokomo Municipal: RWY 23-LOC (previously airport) extending from the 6.7-mile (previously 7-mile) radius of the airport to 11.8 (increased from 10.7) miles northeast of the airport; amending the extension southwest of Kokomo Municipal Airport to within 2 (decreased from 4) miles each side of the 225° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.7-mile (previously 7-mile) radius of the airport to 10.7 (decreased from 10.9) miles southwest of the airport; updating the geographic coordinates of Kokomo Municipal Airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; within a 6.5-mile (decreased from a 7.7-mile) radius of Logansport/Cass County Airport, Logansport, IN; within a 6.4-mile (increased from a 6.3-mile) radius of Peru Municipal Airport, Peru, IN; and removing the point in space geographic coordinates of the Regional Health System Heliport, Kokomo, IN, from the airspace legal description as they are listed in the header of the airspace legal description and are redundant;

Amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.5-mile (decreased from a 7-mile) radius of McKinney Field, Marion, IN; adding an extension within 6.9 miles southwest and 4 miles northeast of the Marion VOR/DME 323° radial extending from the 6.5-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles northwest of the Marion VOR/DME; and updating the name (previously Marion Municipal Airport) and geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;

And amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.4-mile (decreased from a 6.7-mile) radius of Sheridan Airport, Sheridan, IN; removing the exclusionary language as it is not required; and updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

This action is due to an airspace review conducted as part of the decommissioning of the Kokomo VOR, which provided navigation information for the instrument procedures at these airports, as part of the VOR MON Program.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

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

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Sky Harbor Airport, Duluth, MN, to support instrument flight rule operations at this airport.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2022-0904/Airspace Docket No. 22-AGL-28.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at www.regulations.gov . Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Sky Harbor Airport, Duluth, MN, by updating the header of the airspace legal description from “Duluth Sky Harbor Airport, MN” to “Duluth, MN” to comply with changes to FAA Order JO 7400.2N, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters; updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; and removing the exclusionary language from the airspace legal description as it is no longer required.

This action is due to an airspace review to support new public instrument procedures.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

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

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart i, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority, as it would modify Class D airspace and establish Class E airspace at Butts AAF (Fort Carson) Airport, CO, to support IFR and VFR operations at the airport.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2022-0797; Airspace Docket No. 20-ANM-44”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198.

This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by modifying the Class D surface area, and establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Butts AAF (Fort Carson) Airport, CO.

Class D airspace should be expanded to the northwest to contain runway 31 departures until reaching 700 feet above the surface due to rising terrain in that area.

Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface should be established southeast and north of the airport to properly contain departures until reaching 1,200 feet above the surface in those areas.

Finally, this action proposes several administrative modifications to the airspace at Butts AAF (Fort Carson) Airport, CO. The airport name in the text header is incorrect. It should read: “Butts AAF (Fort Carson) Airport, CO.” The other airport referenced in the Class D legal description is also incorrect. It should read: “City of Colorado Springs Municipal Airport, CO.” The geographic coordinates for both Butts AAF (Fort Carson) Airport, CO and the City of Colorado Springs Municipal Airport, CO should be updated to match the FAA's database. Additionally, the outdated terms “Notice to Airmen” and “Airport/Facility Directory” should be replaced with the terms “Notice to Air Missions,” and “Chart Supplement,” respectively, to better match the FAA's current nomenclature. Lastly, the reference to the Iron Horse non-directional beacon (NDB), CO should be removed from the Class D legal description's text header, as it's not required to describe the airspace, and its removal simplifies the legal description.

Class D and E5 airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

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

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding the proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in developing the final priorities, requirements, and definitions, we urge you to clearly identify the specific section of the proposed priorities, requirements, or definitions that each comment addresses.

We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions. Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the Department's programs and activities. Please also feel free to offer for our consideration any alternative approaches to the subjects addressed by the proposed regulations.

During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about the proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions by accessing Regulations.gov . You may also inspect the comments in person. Please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT to make arrangements to inspect the comments in person.

Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for the proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Purpose of Program: The SBMH Program provides competitive grants to State educational agencies (SEAs) (as defined in section 8101 of the ESEA), LEAs (as defined in section 8101 of the ESEA), and consortia of LEAs to increase the number of qualified ( i.e., licensed, certified, or credentialed, each as defined in this document) mental health services providers providing school-based mental health services to students in LEAs with demonstrated need.

Program Authority: Section 4631(a)(1)(B) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7281).

This document contains four proposed priorities.

Background:

Like good physical health, positive mental health promotes success in life. As defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “[m]ental health includes our emotional, psychological, and social well-being. It affects how we think, feel, and act. It also helps determine how we handle stress, relate to others, and make healthy choices. Mental health is important at every stage of life, from childhood and adolescence through adulthood.”  1

The Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic brought on challenges for children and youth that impacted their overall emotional, psychological, and social well-being and their ability to fully engage in learning. The disruptions in routines, relationships, and the learning environment have led to increased stress and trauma, social isolation, and anxiety. More than half of parents express concern over their children's mental well-being. 2 Moreover, survey data suggests that this crisis began long before the arrival of COVID-19. In 2019, one in three high school students and half of female students reported persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness, an overall increase of 40 percent from 2009. 3 Emergency department visits for attempted suicide have risen 51 percent among adolescent girls. 4 The need for mental health services is particularly acute for our lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI+) students. For example, “[the] share of [lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB)] high schoolers who said their mental health was not good most of the time or always during the pandemic was more than double that of heterosexual students (64% vs. 30%) . . . [and] about three-quarters of LGB high schoolers (76%) said they felt sad or hopeless almost daily for at least two weeks such that they stopped doing some of their usual activities, compared with 37% of heterosexual students.”  5

This program is designed to address several barriers to increasing mental health support for children and youth in our schools. The first barrier is a significant shortage of qualified mental health services providers, including in schools. 6 Qualified professionals may need training and skill sets that include the capacity to conduct behavioral health assessments, identify youth who may need additional supports or pose a serious threat to themselves or others, and provide evidence-based interventions, particularly related to trauma- and grief-informed care. Qualified providers may also need to assist in the development of school environments and activities that promote behavioral wellness and foster resilience. Second, in mental health services provider preparation and professional development programs, there is a lack of pedagogical practices that prepare providers to create culturally and linguistically inclusive and identity-safe environments. An identity-safe environment is a place where every student feels physically and emotionally safe. Perceptions of safety may differ across subgroups of students, and each intervention and support measure should be designed to ensure the safety and belonging of all students. Third, the public stigmatization associated with mental health care, which often inhibits children and adolescents from taking advantage of care even when it is available, is compounded for underserved groups. 7 Fourth, and related to the second barrier, is the need for more mental health services providers from diverse backgrounds, from the communities they serve, and who can provide services in languages other than English. 8

In response to these barriers, the Department will make awards in FY 2023 under two competitive grants programs that are designed to increase the number of qualified school-based mental health services providers—the SBMH Program (described in this document) and the Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program. The Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program provides competitive grants to support and provide examples of effective innovative partnerships to train school-based mental health services providers for employment in schools and LEAs. For more information about the Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant program competition, visit the Department's website at: https://oese.ed.gov/offices/office-of-formula-grants/safe-supportive-schools/mental-health-service-professional-demonstration-grant-program/. Together these two programs are intended to provide timely and necessary support to LEAs by increasing the number of qualified school-based mental health services providers. We are proposing priorities, requirements, and definitions for the Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program in a separate document published in the Federal Register .

The priorities we propose in this document for the SBMH Program are intended to address personnel shortages by (1) increasing recruitment and retention-related incentives and (2) promoting the respecialization and certification of existing mental health services providers to qualify them for work in LEAs with demonstrated need. Additionally, the Department proposes a priority that seeks to increase the diversity, and cultural and linguistic competency, of school-based mental health services providers, including competency in providing identity-safe services, which the Department believes is essential to addressing the mental health needs of all students.

The Department also is interested in applicants' demonstrated capacity to increase access to and sustain school-based mental health services beyond the period of Federal funding and support expanded access to care by promoting the integration of mental health services and supports into schools' in-person and telehealth services options. The use of telehealth to address mental health and substance use needs rose dramatically during the height of the pandemic and has remained above pre-pandemic levels even where COVID-19 has waned. These telehealth services have proven both safe and effective, while reducing barriers to care. 9 Telehealth services options also help to address provider shortages in rural communities, in part by improving access to mental health services providers in such communities.

Additionally, the Department encourages applicants to plan for ways they will leverage available Federal, State, and local resources to achieve project goals and objectives.

The Department proposes the following four priorities for this program. Priorities 1 and 3 are only applicable to SEAs. Priority 2 is only applicable to LEAs or consortia of LEAs. Priority 4 is applicable to all eligible applicants. We may apply one or more of these priorities in any year in which this program is in effect.

Proposed Priority 1—SEAs Proposing to Increase the Number of Qualified School-Based Mental Health Services Providers in LEAs with Demonstrated Need.

To meet this priority, an SEA must propose to increase the number of qualified school-based mental health services providers by implementing plans that address recruitment (defined in this document) and retention (defined in this document) of services providers in LEAs with demonstrated need. Applicants must propose plans that include both of the following:

(a) Recruitment. An applicant must propose a plan to increase the number of qualified services providers serving students in LEAs with demonstrated need.

(b) Retention. An applicant must also propose a plan to increase the likelihood that qualified services providers providing services in LEAs with demonstrated need remain in such LEAs over time.

Proposed Priority 2—LEAs or Consortia of LEAs with Demonstrated Need Proposing to Increase the Number of Qualified School-Based Mental Health Services Providers.

To meet this priority, an LEA or consortium of LEAs with demonstrated need must propose measures to increase the number of qualified school-based mental health services providers, including plans to address the recruitment and retention of qualified services providers in the LEA(s). Applicants must propose plans that include both of the following:

(a) Recruitment. An applicant must propose a plan to increase the number of qualified services providers serving students in the LEA(s) with demonstrated need.

(b) Retention. An applicant must also propose a plan to improve the likelihood that qualified services providers providing services in the LEA(s) with demonstrated need remain in such LEAs over time.

Proposed Priority 3—SEAs Proposing Respecialization or Additional Certification of Existing Mental Health Services Providers to Qualify Them for Work in LEAs with Demonstrated Need.

To meet this priority, an applicant must propose a respecialization (defined in this document) or other certification plan that promotes the readiness of services providers who already have training as social workers, counselors, or psychologists, or in other related fields, by supporting incremental training needed to work in an elementary school (as defined in section 8101 of the ESEA) or secondary school (as defined in section 8101 of the ESEA) and that is designed to increase the number of services providers qualified to serve in LEAs with demonstrated need.

Proposed Priority 4—Increasing the Number of Qualified School-Based Mental Health Services Providers in LEAs with Demonstrated Need Who Are from Diverse Backgrounds or from Communities Served by the LEAs with Demonstrated Need.

To meet this priority, applicants must propose a plan to increase the number of qualified school-based mental health services providers in LEAs with demonstrated need who are from diverse backgrounds or who are from communities served by the LEAs with demonstrated need. 10

Applicants must describe how their proposal to increase the number of school-based mental health services providers who are from diverse backgrounds or who are from the communities served by the LEA with demonstrated need will help increase access to mental health services for students within the LEA with demonstrated need and best meet the mental health needs of the diverse populations of students to be served.

Types of Priorities:

When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, the Department of Education designates the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal Register . The nature of each type of priority is as 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)).

The Department proposes the following requirements for this program. Proposed application requirement (a) would apply to SEAs only; and proposed application requirement (b) would apply to LEAs only. All of the remaining proposed requirements would apply to all eligible applicants. We may apply one or more of these requirements in any year in which the program is in effect.

Eligible Applicants: One or both of SEAs, as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(49), or LEAs, as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(30), including consortia of LEAs.

Proposed Program Requirements:

(a) Applicants that receive an award under this program must ensure that any school-based mental health services provider hired under this grant, including any services provider that offers telehealth services, is qualified by the State to work in an elementary school or secondary school.

(b) Applicants that receive an award under this program must ensure that any school-based mental health services provider offering services (including telehealth services) does so in an equitable manner and consistent with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, as well as all other applicable Federal, State, and local laws and profession-specific ethical obligations.

Proposed Application Requirements:

(a) Describe the LEAs with demonstrated need designated by the SEA to be served by the proposed project.

SEA applicants must describe the LEAs with demonstrated need designated to benefit from the SBMH program.

(b) Describe how the LEA, or each LEA in the proposed consortium (if applicable), meets the definition of an LEA with demonstrated need.

To meet this requirement, an LEA applicant or the lead LEA submitting an application on behalf of a consortium must describe how the LEA or each LEA in the consortium meets the definition of an LEA with demonstrated need.

(c) Describe the importance and magnitude of the problem.

Applicants must describe the lack of school-based mental health services providers and its effect on students in the LEA(s) to be served by the grant. This must include a description of the nature of the problem for the LEA(s), based on information including, but not limited to, the most recent available ratios of school-based mental health services providers to students enrolled in the LEA(s), or for SEA applicants, the LEAs designated by the SEA to benefit from the SBMH Program. These data must be provided in the aggregate and disaggregated by profession ( e.g., school social workers, school psychologists, school counselors) as compared to local, State, or national data. The description may also include LEA-level or school-level demographic data (including rates of poverty, rates of chronic absenteeism, percentage of students involved in the juvenile justice system, experiencing homelessness, or in foster care, and discipline data), school climate surveys, school violence/crime data, data related to suicide rates, and descriptions of barriers to hiring and retaining qualified school-based mental health services providers in the LEA.

(d) Detailed project budget, including matching funds.

To promote the sustainability of the school-based mental health services, all applicants must include non-Federal matching funds in one of the following amounts, as determined by the Secretary in the notice inviting applications:

(1) At least 10 percent of their budgets.

(2) At least 15 percent of their budgets.

(3) At least 20 percent of their budgets.

(4) At least 25 percent of their budgets.

Budgets must describe how the applicant will meet the matching requirement for each budget period awarded under this grant and must indicate the source of the funds, such as State, local, or private resources. The Secretary may consider decreasing or waiving the matching requirement post award, on a case-by-case basis, if an applicant demonstrates a significant financial hardship.

Budgets must also specify the portion of funds that will be used for respecialization, if applicable.

Administrative costs for SEA applicants may not exceed 10 percent of the annual grant award. This includes funding for State-level or LEA-level administrative costs that promote respecialization, if applicable. Administrative costs for LEAs and consortia of LEAs may not exceed 5 percent of the annual grant award.

(e) Number of providers.

Applicants must include the most recent available data on the number of school-based mental health services providers in the identified LEA(s), disaggregated by profession ( e.g., school social workers, school psychologists, school counselors), and the projected number of school-based mental health services providers that will be placed into employment in the identified LEA(s) for each year of the plan using funds from this grant or matching funds, including the unduplicated number of school-based mental health services providers offering telehealth services, as appropriate.

(f) A plan for collaboration and coordination with related Federal, State, and local organizations and initiatives.

Applicants must propose a plan describing how they will (1) collaborate with at least one State, regional, or local organization, such as school social worker associations, school psychologist associations, school counselor associations, or colleges or universities, and (2) coordinate with regional or local mental health, public health, child welfare, and other community agencies, which may include school-based health centers, to achieve plan goals and objectives of increasing the number of school-based mental health services providers in LEAs with demonstrated need. Applicants may also describe proposed coordination with existing federally funded efforts related to elementary and secondary school counseling and mental health promotion, including Medicaid, if applicable. If such coordination will occur, applicants must identify which Federal program(s) they are coordinating with and how such coordination will promote program success across multiple programs.

(g) Use of grant funds to supplement, and not supplant, existing school-based mental health services funds and to expand, not duplicate, efforts to increase the number of providers.

Applicants must describe how project funds will supplement, and not supplant, non-Federal funds that would otherwise be available for activities funded under this program.

Applicants must describe how they will use the SBMH Program funds to expand, rather than duplicate, existing or new efforts to increase the number of qualified school-based mental health services providers in LEAs with demonstrated need and how they will integrate existing funding streams and efforts to support the plan.

(h) Plan for immediate services to students.

For SEA applicants, applicants must describe their plan to ensure services are provided to students immediately, including via subgrants to LEAs, as appropriate. For LEA applicants and consortia of LEAs, applicants must describe their plan to ensure students are provided services immediately.

The Department proposes to establish definitions of “certified,” “certification,” “credentialed,” “LEA with demonstrated need,” “licensed,” “recruitment,” “respecialization,” “retention,” and “telehealth” for use in this program. We may apply these in any year in which this program is in effect.

Certified means an individual has documented verification of education, expertise, or training in school psychology, school counseling, or school social work by a State or other recognized entity.

Certification means a level of achievement awarded by a State or other recognized entity that attests to an individual's education, expertise, or training to serve as a school-based mental health services provider.

Credentialed means an individual who possesses credentialing as a school psychologist, school counselor, or a school social worker from a State-level or other recognized entity.

LEA with demonstrated need means an LEA that has a significant need for additional school-based mental health services providers based on—

(1) High student to mental health services provider ratios as compared to other LEAs statewide or nationally;

(2) High rates of community violence (including hate crimes), poverty, substance use (including opioid use), suicide, or trafficking; or

(3) A significant number of students who are migratory, experiencing homelessness, have a family member deployed in the military or with a military-service connected disability (including veterans), have experienced a natural or manmade disaster or a traumatic event, or have other adverse childhood experiences.

Licensed means an individual has a license that represents a State's legal authority for that individual to serve as a school-based mental health services provider.

Recruitment means strategies that help attract and hire professionals into positions that are otherwise hard to fill or where demand exceeds supply, including by doing at least one of the following:

(a) Providing an annual salary or stipend for school-based mental health services providers who maintain an active national certification.

(b) Providing payment toward the school loans accrued by the school-based mental health services provider.

(c) Creating pathways to grant cross-State credentialing reciprocity for school-based mental health services providers.

(d) Providing incentives and supports to help mitigate shortages. These may include, for example, increasing pay; offering monetary incentives for relocation to high-need areas; providing services via telehealth; creating hybrid roles that allow for leadership, academic, or research opportunities; developing induction programs; developing paid internship programs; and offering service scholarship programs such as those that provide grants in exchange for a commitment to serve in the LEA for a minimum number of years.

Respecialization means strategies that promote the readiness of mental health services providers who already have training as social workers, counselors, or psychologists, or in other related fields, to serve in elementary or secondary schools, including by doing one or more of the following:

(a) Revising, updating, or streamlining requirements for such individuals so that additional training or other requirements focus only on incremental training needed for working in an elementary school or secondary school.

(b) Providing a stipend or making a payment to support the incremental training needed for working in an elementary school or secondary school.

(c) Offering flexible options for completing training that leads such professionals to meet State requirements.

(d) Establishing new State-level programs that provide alternate means of certification, licensure, or credentialing for such professionals, including through practical or on-the-job training.

(e) Offering other meaningful activities that result in existing mental health services providers obtaining the training they need to work in an elementary school or secondary school.

Retention means strategies to help ensure that qualified individuals stay in their position to avoid gaps in service and unfilled positions, including by—

(a) Providing opportunities for advancement or leadership, such as career pathways programs, recognition and award programs, and mentorship programs; and

(b) Offering incentives and supports to help mitigate shortages. These may include, for example, increasing pay, making payments toward student loans, offering monetary incentives for relocation to high-need areas, providing services via telehealth, offering service scholarship programs such as those that provide grants in exchange for a commitment to serve in the LEA for a minimum number of years, and developing paid internship programs.

Telehealth means the use of electronic information and telecommunication technologies to support and promote long-distance clinical health care, patient and professional health-related education, public health, and health administration. Technologies include videoconferencing, the internet, store-and-forward imaging, streaming media, and landline and wireless communications.

Final Priorities, Requirements, and Definitions:

We will announce the final priorities, requirements and definitions in a document published in the Federal Register . We will determine the final priorities, requirements, and definitions after considering responses to the proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions and other information available to the Department. This document does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year in which we choose to use the priorities, requirements, and definitions we invite applications through a notice inviting applications in the Federal Register .

Under Executive Order 12866, it must be determined whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (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 proposed regulatory action is a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 because it has an annual effect on the economy of more than $100 million. Approximately $145 million are available under this program from fiscal year 2022 appropriations actions, and $100 million are available each year from fiscal year 2023 to fiscal year 2026.

We have also reviewed this proposed 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 on 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 proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions only on a reasoned determination that their benefits would justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that would maximize net benefits. Based on an analysis of anticipated costs and benefits, we believe that the proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions are 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 the 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 proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions are necessary for the implementation of the SBMH program consistent with the requirements established by Congress in the Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2022, and the Explanatory Statement accompanying that Act. It is important to note that implementation of the SBMH program would almost exclusively confer benefits on the recipients of Federal funds subject to the proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions, whose voluntary participation in the SBMH program would entail minimal costs except for those paid with Federal funds and the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) section of this document discusses the burden estimates for preparing an application. This program was established under a statute with broad authority and only non-binding report language establishing program purpose, eligibility, or requirements; consequently, this rulemaking action is necessary to ensure program funds are used for their intended purpose. More specifically, the proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions would ensure that the Department may collect from applicants for SBMH funding the information necessary for competitive review of applications by peer reviewers, and to fund high-quality applications that will lead to the implementation of projects consistent with Congressional intent. Absent this rulemaking action, there is no alternative means of meeting these objectives.

The specific benefits of establishing a menu of proposed priorities include ensuring that funds are used consistent with Congressional intent and providing flexibility to the Department for supporting multiple strategies designed to address the shortage of school-based mental health services providers. The first strategy, embedded in proposed priorities 1 and 2, is to focus grant activities on hiring additional school-based mental health services providers in LEAs with demonstrated need to increase the number of school-based mental health services providers in schools and local educational agencies that have the most need for such services. The definition of LEA with demonstrated need, incorporated into these priorities, also was crafted to provide flexibility for an LEA to show need through data (ratios of school counselors to students), a description of events or conditions affecting school environment (such as community violence or disasters), or evidence that an applicant will serve students who have or are likely to face adverse childhood experiences. Although the total number of LEAs is large (over 13,000 in school year 2018-19), the available funding will only support a limited number of multi-year projects. Absent the targeting of SBMH funds to LEAs with demonstrated need, the program may allocate scarce Federal resources to high-capacity LEAs that already meet the mental health needs of their students. Moreover, ensuring that funds are targeted to LEAs with demonstrated need was a requirement of the fiscal year 2020 SBMH competition, and Congress directed the Department, through the Explanatory Statement accompanying the Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2022, to incorporate the same requirement into the fiscal year 2022 SBMH competition.

The benefit of including Proposed priority 3 is that it supports another strategy for addressing the shortage of school-based mental health services providers. Requirements for school-based mental health services providers are established by States and generally include completion of bachelor's degree or higher, completion of practicum, and internship in a K-12 school, which typically take several years to fulfill. Proposed priority 3 would support States working to establish innovative strategies to expand the pipeline for qualified mental health providers by establishing pathways for individuals in related fields to attain the credentials to work as school-based mental health services providers. Under this priority, for example, a State might determine that individuals in related fields—such as counseling or social work—would only need to obtain incremental, additional training to qualify as a school-based mental health services provider, rather than a full degree or credentialing program. This strategy has the benefit of reducing the time necessary for credentialing and potentially increasing the number of qualified mental health providers available for hiring by LEAs, which is the core goal and purpose of the SBMH program. Absent the expanded use of such strategies, SBMH grantees may not be able to achieve this core goal due to the lack of qualified candidates.

The benefit of Proposed priority 4 is that it supports another strategy for expanding the workforce of school-based mental health services providers. Currently, the psychology  11 and school counselor  12 workforce is significantly less diverse than the student population. 13 Increasing the number of qualified school-based mental health services providers from diverse backgrounds and from communities served by the LEAs with demonstrated need, and who can provide culturally and linguistically appropriate services, not only would expand the numbers of these providers but also increase access to and improve the quality of mental health services available to students. Further, this priority supports the Administration's equity agenda  14 and the Department's mission to support equity and excellence.

The Department believes that this proposed regulatory action would not impose significant costs on eligible entities, whose participation in our programs is voluntary, and costs can generally be covered with grant funds. As a result, the proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions would not impose a significant burden except when an entity voluntarily elects to apply for a grant. We believe these benefits would outweigh any associated costs.

The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) section of this document discusses the burden estimates for preparing an application. The potential benefits of receiving Federal funds under this program to expand the pool of and hire school-based mental health services providers will likely outweigh the application costs detailed in the PRA section. The costs of implementing the requirements established in this notice can be paid for with grant funds. Moreover, even an unsuccessful applicant may benefit from the effort of preparing an application, such as conducting deep data analysis about the needs in their LEA or developing creative plans to expand pathways to high-quality credentialing in this area.

The Department believes that the final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria in this notice are needed to administer the program effectively. The authorizing statute does not provide sufficient detail to develop and administer a competitive grant program consistent with the intent of Congress as expressed in the Explanatory Statement accompanying the Department of Education Appropriations Act. 2022, which provided funding for the program in fiscal year 2022, or the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which provided additional funding for fiscal years 2022 through 2026. Consequently, absent the proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions, the Department would not have a sufficient basis for evaluating the quality of applications or ensuring that the program achieves its intended objectives.

As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/circulara004/a-4.pdf ), in the following table we have prepared an accounting statement showing the classification of the expenditures associated with the provisions of this regulatory action. This table provides our best estimate of the changes in annual monetized transfers as a result of this regulatory action.

Expenditures are classified as transfers from the Federal Government to SEAs and LEAs.

Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential memorandum “Plain Language in Government Writing” require each agency to write regulations that are easy to understand.

The Secretary invites comments on how to make the proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following:

• Are the priorities, requirements, and definitions in the proposed regulations clearly stated?

• Do the proposed regulations contain technical terms or other wording that interferes with their clarity?

• Does the format of the proposed regulations (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce their clarity?

• Would the proposed regulations be easier to understand if we divided them into more (but shorter) sections?

• Could the description of the proposed regulations in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble be more helpful in making the proposed regulations easier to understand? If so, how?

• What else could we do to make the proposed regulations easier to understand?

To send any comments that concern how the Department could make the proposed regulations easier to understand, see the instructions in the ADDRESSES section.

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.

The Secretary certifies that this proposed regulatory action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The U.S. Small Business Administration 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 proposed regulatory action would affect are school districts applying for and receiving funds under this program. The Secretary believes that the costs imposed on applicants by the proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions, would be limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an application and that the benefits of implementing these proposals would outweigh any costs incurred by applicants.

Participation in this program is voluntary. For this reason, the proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions would impose no burden on small entities in general. Eligible applicants would determine whether to apply for funds and have the opportunity to weigh the requirements for preparing applications, and any associated costs, against the likelihood of receiving funding and the requirements for implementing projects under the program. Eligible applicants most likely would apply only if they determine that the likely benefits exceed the costs of preparing an application. The likely benefits include the potential receipt of a grant as well as other benefits that may accrue to an entity through its development of an application, such as the use of that application to seek funding from other sources to address a shortage in mental health providers.

As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, the Department provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). This helps ensure that the public understands the Department's collection instructions, respondents provide the requested data in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the Department can properly assess the impact of collection requirements on respondents.

The proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions contain information collection requirements. Under the PRA the Department has submitted these requirements to OMB for its review.

A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless OMB approves the collection under the PRA and the corresponding information collection instrument displays a currently valid OMB control number. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to comply with, or is subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information if the collection instrument does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

In the notice of final priorities, requirements, and definitions we will display the control number assigned by OMB to any information collection proposed in this document and adopted in the notice of final priorities, requirements, and definitions.

For the years that the Department holds an SBMH Program competition, we estimate 300 applicants will apply and submit an application based on prior competitions for the program. We estimate that it will take each applicant 40 hours to complete and submit the application, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The total burden hour estimate for this collection is 12,000 hours. At $95.46 per hour (using mean wages for Education and Childcare Administrators  15 and assuming the total cost of labor, including benefits and overhead, is equal to 200 percent of the mean wage rate), the total estimated cost for 300 applicants to complete the SBMH Program application is approximately $1,145,520.

The Department is requesting paperwork clearance on the OMB 1810-xxxx data collection associated with this proposed requirement. That request will account for all burden hours and costs discussed within this section.

Consistent with 5 CFR 1320.8(d), the Department is soliciting comments on the information collection through this document. Between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register , OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collections of information contained in these proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions. Therefore, to ensure that OMB gives your comments full consideration, it is important that OMB receives your comments on this Information Collection Request by September 1, 2022.

Comments related to the information collection activities must be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number ED-2022-OESE-XXXX or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery by referencing the Docket ID number and the title of the information collection request at the top of your comment. Comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the PRA Coordinator of the Strategic Collections and Clearance Governance and Strategy Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, LBJ, Room 6W208D, Washington, DC 20202-8240.

Note: The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and the Department review all comments related to the information collection activities posted at www.regulations.gov.

We consider your comments on this proposed collection of information in—

• Deciding whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of our functions, including whether the information will have practical use;

• Evaluating the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed collection, including the validity of our methodology and assumptions;

• Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information we collect; and

• Minimizing the burden on those who must respond. This includes exploring the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.

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 the 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.

Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding the proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in developing the notice of final priorities, requirements, and definitions, we urge you to clearly identify the specific section of the proposed priorities, requirements, or definitions that each comment addresses.

We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from the proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions. Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program.

During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about the proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions by accessing Regulations.gov. You may also inspect the comments in person. Please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT to make arrangements to inspect the comments in person.

Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record: On request, we will provide an appropriate accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for the proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Purpose of Program: The Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program provides competitive grants to support and demonstrate innovative partnerships to train school-based mental health services providers for employment in schools and LEAs. The goal of this program is to increase the number of high-quality, trained providers to address the shortages of mental health services professionals in schools served by high-need LEAs. The partnerships must include (1) one or more high-need LEAs or a State educational agency (SEA) on behalf of one or more high-need LEAs; and (2) one or more eligible institutions of higher education (IHE). Partnerships must provide opportunities to place postsecondary graduate students in school-based mental health fields into high-need schools served by the participating high-need LEAs to complete required field work, credit hours, internships, or related training, as applicable, for the degree, license, or credential program of each student. In addition to the placement of graduate students, grantees may also develop mental health career pathways as early as secondary school, through career and technical education opportunities, or through paraprofessional support degree programs at local community or technical colleges.

Program Authority: Section 4631(a)(1)(B) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA) (20 U.S.C. 7281).

This document contains three proposed priorities. We may apply one or more of these priorities in any year in which this program is in effect.

Background:

Like good physical health, positive mental health promotes success in life. As defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “Mental health includes our emotional, psychological, and social well-being. It affects how we think, feel, and act. It also helps determine how we handle stress, relate to others, and make healthy choices. Mental health is important at every stage of life, from childhood and adolescence through adulthood.”  1

Support for the mental health of children and youth advances educational opportunities by creating conditions where students can fully engage in learning. The Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic presented additional challenges to the well-being of children and youth. The disruption to routines, relationships, and the learning environment has led to increased stress and trauma, social isolation, and anxiety that can have both immediate and long-term adverse impacts on the physical, social, emotional, and academic well-being of children and youth. 2 These challenges have only exacerbated existing challenges facing children and youth and have heightened the need to increase access to qualified school-based mental health services providers.

The Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant program is designed to address several barriers to increasing mental health support for children and youth in our schools. First, there is a significant shortage of qualified school-based mental health services providers in all types of schools, whether urban, rural, or suburban, or elementary, middle, or high schools. Qualified professionals may need training and skill sets that include the capacity to conduct behavioral health assessments, identify youth who may need additional supports or pose a serious threat to themselves or others, and provide evidence-based interventions, particularly related to trauma- and grief-informed care. Qualified providers may also need to assist in the development of school environments and activities that promote behavioral wellness and foster resilience. According to recent national data, the ratios of students to providers are significantly greater than what experts recommend:

(1) The student-to-counselor ratio is 415:1, compared to the recommended ratio of 250:1 by the American School Counselor Association;  3 and

(2) The student-to-psychologist ratio is estimated at 1211:1, with some States approaching a ratio of 5000:1, compared to the recommended ratio of 500:1 for providing comprehensive school psychological services by the National Association of School Psychologists. 4

Second, in mental health services provider preparation and professional development programs, there is a need to expand pedagogical practices that prepare providers to create culturally and linguistically inclusive and identity-safe environments for students when providing services. In particular, the public stigmatization associated with mental health care, which can lead to fewer children and adolescents being willing to access care even when it is available, makes inclusive service environments even more important for underserved groups. 5

Third, there is a need for greater diversity in the profession, including more school-based mental health services providers from diverse backgrounds or from the communities they serve. 6 Like the inclusive pedagogical practices described above, diversifying the pipeline of candidates is critical to improving access to and utilization of services for all students.

In response to these barriers, the Department is proposing three priorities for the Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program that aim to increase the number of school based mental health services providers, increase the number of providers from diverse backgrounds or from the communities they serve, and ensure that all providers are trained in inclusive practices, including supporting providers in ensuring access to services for children and youth who are English learners. Additionally, the Department proposes application requirements for the program, one of which requires applicants to describe how they will leverage available Federal, State, and local resources to achieve project goals and objectives. Specifically, the Department encourages applicants to utilize the American Rescue Plan's (ARP's) historic investment in children and youth by using available ARP funds in conjunction with other Federal, State, and local funds and Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program funds to make investments that will create permanent support for an adequate pipeline of trained and diverse providers well beyond the life of the project.

In addition to the competition under the Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program described in this document, the Department is conducting a second grant competition this fiscal year also focused on school-based mental health services providers. The School-Based Mental Health Services Grant (SBMH) program provides competitive grants to SEAs, LEAs, and consortia of LEAs to increase the number of qualified mental health services providers providing school-based mental health services to students in LEAs with demonstrated need. For more information about the SBMH program, visit the Department's website at: https://oese.ed.gov/offices/office-of-formula-grants/safe-supportive-schools/school-based-mental-health-services-grant-program/. Together these two programs are intended to provide timely and necessary support to LEAs by increasing the number of school-based mental health services providers.

Proposed Priorities:

Proposed Priority 1—Expand Capacity of High-need LEAs.

Projects that propose to expand the capacity of high-need LEAs (as defined in this notice) in partnership with IHEs to train school-based mental health services providers (as defined in this notice), with the goal of expanding the number of these professionals available to address the shortages of school-based mental health services providers in high-need schools.

To meet this priority, the applicant must propose a school-based mental health partnership (as defined in this notice) to place the IHE's graduate students in mental health services fields into schools served by the participating high-need LEAs for the purpose of completing required field work, credit hours, internships, or related training as applicable for their degree, license, or credential program.

Proposed Priority 2—Increase the Number of Qualified School-Based Mental Health Services Providers in High-Need LEAs Who Are from Diverse Backgrounds or from communities Served by the High-Need LEAs.

Projects that propose to increase the number of qualified school-based mental health services providers in high-need LEAs who are from diverse backgrounds or who are from communities served by the high-need LEAs. 7

Applicants must describe how their proposal to increase the number of school-based mental health services providers who are from diverse backgrounds or who are from the communities served by the high-need LEA will help increase access to mental health services for students within the high-need LEA and best meet the mental health needs of the diverse populations of students to be served.

Proposed Priority 3—Promote Inclusive Practices.

Projects that propose to provide pedagogical practices in mental health services provider preparation programs or professional development programs that are inclusive with regard to race, ethnicity, culture, language, disability, and for students who identify as LGBTQI+, and that prepare school-based mental health services providers to create culturally and linguistically inclusive and identity-safe  8 environments for students when providing services.

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)).

The Department proposes the following program requirement and application requirements for this program. We may apply one or more of these requirements in any year in which the program is in effect.

Proposed Program Requirement:

Eligible Applicants:

Eligible applicants for this program are high-need LEAs, SEAs on behalf of one or more high-need LEAs, and IHEs. High-need LEA applicants and SEA applicants on behalf of one or more high-need LEAs must propose to work in partnership with an eligible institution of higher education (eligible IHE), which may include institutions that serve diverse learners such as partnerships with a Historically Black College or University, Tribal College or University, and other Minority Serving Institutions. Eligible IHE applicants must propose to work in partnership with one or more high-need LEAs or an SEA.

Proposed Application Requirements:

(a) Identification of schools to be served by the proposed project.

Applicants must identify or describe how they will identify the high-need schools to be served in each high-need LEA that is part of the school-based mental health partnership.

(b) A description of the nature and magnitude of the problem.

Applicants must describe how the lack of school-based mental health services providers is specifically affecting students in the high-need schools to be served by project activities. Applicants must describe the nature of the problem for the LEA, based on information including, but not limited to, the most recent available ratios of school-based mental health services providers to students enrolled in the schools in each high-need LEA that is part of the school-based mental health partnership (in the aggregate and disaggregated by profession ( e.g., social workers, school psychologists)). The description may also include LEA and school-level demographic data, including chronic absenteeism and discipline data, school climate surveys, school violence/crime data, data related to suicide rates, and descriptions of barriers to hiring and retaining services providers in the LEA.

(c) A plan to enhance LEA capacity to provide mental health services to students.

Applicants must describe the specific activities they will conduct to expand and improve LEA capacity to provide mental health services to students in high-need LEAs and ensure that students receive appropriate, evidence-based (as defined in section 8101 of the ESEA), and culturally and linguistically inclusive mental health services. To meet this requirement, the applicant must propose a school-based mental health partnership (as defined in this notice) established for the purpose of placing the IHE's graduate students in school-based mental health fields into high-need schools served by the participating high-need LEAs to complete required field work, credit hours, internships, or related training as applicable for the degree, license, or credential program of each student. If the applicant intends to establish a program that directly benefits an individual graduate student, such as through a stipend or tuition credit, the applicant must describe its approach to implementing a service obligation for such graduate student as a school-based mental health services provider in a high-need LEA commensurate with the level of support the graduate student receives.

(d) A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), or Letter of Agreement between the LEA or SEA, and the IHE.

Applicants must include with their application an MOU, MOA, or letter of agreement that is signed by the authorized representatives of the LEA or SEA, and the IHE. The MOU, MOA, or letter of agreement must provide details regarding the roles and responsibilities of each entity in the partnership, to include a description of how the partnership will place graduate students into high-need schools served by the participating high-need LEAs to complete required field work, credit hours, internships, or related training, as applicable, for the degree, license, or credential program of each student. The MOU, MOA, or letter of agreement must also include the estimated number of mental health services providers that will be placed into employment in high- need schools and high-need LEAs on an annual basis.

(e) A plan for collaboration and coordination with related Federal, State, and local initiatives.

Applicants must propose a plan that describes one or more of the following:

(1) How they will collaborate with at least one State and one local professional organization (to include a regional professional organization, if appropriate), such as a school social worker association, school psychologist association, or school counselor association;

(2) The activities to be carried out in coordination with regional and local mental health, public health, child welfare, and other community agencies, which may include school-based health centers, to achieve the plan goals and objectives of establishing a pipeline program to train and expand the capacity of school-based mental health services providers in high-need LEAs;

(3) How they will leverage other available Federal, State, and local resources to achieve project goals and objectives and sustain investments beyond the life of the project. Applicants must identify these other available resources and describe how they will be used to promote success across programs; and

(4) How they will use the Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program funds to expand and enhance existing efforts, or put in place new measures to increase the number of qualified school-based mental health services providers to be employed by eligible schools and LEAs qualified to provide school-based mental health services.

Evidence of collaboration and coordination described in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) must be provided through letters of support or MOAs/MOUs from State or local organizations or agencies, where applicable.

(f) A description of the process to identify students for mental health services.

Applicants must describe the specific process and activities they will use to ensure students in high-need LEAs who need school-based mental health services are properly identified, assessed, and provided the appropriate school-based mental health services. To meet this requirement, applicants must also describe how they will ensure that services are evidence-based and inclusive with regard to race, ethnicity, culture, language, disability, and for students who identify as LGBTQI+, and are accessible to all. Further, applicants must describe how LEAs will engage parents and families for the purposes of raising awareness about the availability of services and connecting students to services.

The Department proposes to establish definitions of “eligible institution of higher education,” “high-need LEA,” “high-need school,” “school-based mental health partnership,” and “students/children from low-income families,” for use in this program. We may apply the definitions in any year in which this program is in effect.

Eligible institution of higher education means an institution of higher education that offers a program of study that leads to a master's degree or other graduate degree—

(a) In school psychology that prepares students in such program for the State licensing or certification examination in school-based psychology;

(b) In school counseling that prepares students in such program for the State licensing or certification examination in school counseling;

(c) In school social work that prepares students in such program for the State licensing or certification examination in school social work;

(d) In another school-based mental health field, including such fields as behavioral health aides, school nurses, and clinical psychologists employed by the schools or under contract with LEAs to provide evaluations, if applicable, that prepares students in such program for the State licensing or certification examination; or

(e) In any combination of study described in paragraphs (a) through (d).

High-need LEA means a local educational agency—

(a)(1) For which at least 20 percent of the children served by the agency are children from low-income background;

(2) That serves at least 10,000 children from low-income backgrounds;

(3) That meets the eligibility requirements for funding under the Small, Rural School Achievement Program under section 56211(b) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965; or

(4) That meets the eligibility requirements for funding under the Rural and Low-Income School Program under section 56221(b) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965; and

(b) For which there is a high student to qualified mental health services provider ratio as compared to other LEAs statewide or nationally.

High-need school means a school that, based on the most recent data available, meets at least one of the following:

(a) The school is in the highest quartile of all schools served by an LEA ranked in descending order by percentage of students from low-income families enrolled in such schools, as determined by the LEA based on one of the following measures of poverty:

(1) The percentage of students aged 5 through 17 in poverty counted in the most recent census data approved by the Secretary.

(2) The percentage of students eligible for a free or reduced-price school lunch under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act based on the most recently available data.

(3) The percentage of students in families receiving assistance under the State program funded under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act.

(4) The percentage of students eligible to receive medical assistance under the Medicaid program.

(5) A composite of two or more of the measures described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4).

(b) In the case of—

(1) An elementary school, the school serves students not less than 60 percent of whom are eligible for a free or reduced-price school lunch under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act based on the most recently available data; or

(2) Any other school that is not an elementary school, the other school serves students not less than 45 percent of whom are eligible for a free or reduced-price school lunch under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act based on the most recently available data.

School-based mental health partnership means the formal relationship, established for the purpose of training school-based mental health services providers for employment in schools and LEAs, between—

(a) One or more high-need LEAs or an SEA on behalf of one or more high-need LEAs; and

(b) One or more eligible IHEs.

Students/children from low-income families means students whose families meet any of the poverty thresholds established in section 1113 of the ESEA for the relevant grade level.

Final Priorities, Requirements, and Definitions:

We will announce the final priorities, requirements, and definitions in a document published in the Federal Register . We will determine the final priorities, requirements, and definitions after considering responses to the proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions and other information available to the Department. This document does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, or definitions, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year in which we choose to use the priorities, requirements, and definitions, we invite applications through a notice inviting applications in the Federal Register .

Under Executive Order 12866, it must be determined whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (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 proposed regulatory action is a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 because it has an annual effect on the economy of more than $100 million. Approximately $145 million are available under this program from fiscal year 2022 appropriations actions, and $100 million are available each year from fiscal year 2023 to fiscal year 2026.

We have also reviewed this proposed 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 on 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 proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions only on a reasoned determination that their benefits would justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that would maximize net benefits. Based on an analysis of anticipated costs and benefits, we believe that the proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions are 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 the 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 proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions are necessary for the implementation of the Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program consistent with the requirements established by Congress in the Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2022, and the Explanatory Statement accompanying that Act. It is important to note that implementation of the Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program would almost exclusively confer benefits on the recipients of Federal funds subject to the proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions, whose voluntary participation in the Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program would entail minimal costs except for those paid with Federal funds, and the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) section of this document discusses the burden estimates for preparing an application. This program was established under a statute with broad authority and only non-binding report language establishing program purpose, eligibility, or requirements; consequently, this rulemaking action is necessary to ensure program funds are used for their intended purpose. More specifically, the proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions would ensure that the Department may collect from applicants for Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program funding the information necessary for competitive review of applications by peer reviewers, and to fund high-quality applications that will lead to the implementation of projects consistent with Congressional intent. Absent this rulemaking action, there is no alternative means of meeting these objectives.

The specific benefits of establishing a menu of proposed priorities include ensuring that funds are used consistent with Congressional intent and providing flexibility to the Department for supporting multiple strategies designed to address the shortage of mental health services providers in schools. The first strategy, embedded in proposed priority 1, is to focus grant activities on the expansion of school-based mental health services providers on high-need LEAs. The definition of high-need LEA, incorporated into these priorities, was crafted to provide flexibility for an LEA to show need in various ways, including through poverty rates or size. Although the total number of LEAs is large (over 13,000 in school year 2018-19), the available funding will only support a limited number of multi-year projects. Absent the targeting of Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program funds to high-need LEAs, the program may allocate scarce Federal resources to high-capacity LEAs that already meet the mental health needs of their students. Moreover, ensuring that funds are targeted to high-need LEAs was a requirement of the fiscal year 2019 Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program competition, and Congress directed the Department, through the Explanatory Statement accompanying the Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2022, to incorporate the same requirement into the fiscal year 2022 Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program competition.

Proposed priority 2 supports a strategy for expanding the workforce of school-based mental health services providers. Currently, the psychology  9 and school counselor  10 workforces are significantly less diverse than the student population. 11 Increasing the number of qualified school-based mental health services providers who are from diverse backgrounds and from communities served by the high-need LEAs, and who can provide culturally and linguistically appropriate services, would expand not only the numbers of these providers but also provide better access to and improve the quality of mental health services available to students. This priority has the additional benefit of promoting equity for students, in keeping with the Administration's agenda  12 and the Department's mission to support equity and excellence.

Proposed priority 3 seeks to increase the number of school-based mental health services providers who can provide services that are culturally and linguistically inclusive and identity-safe environments for students. Given the diversity of the student population, every school-based mental health services provider should be able to implement inclusive practices and be able to provide services to any and all students. This priority also supports the Administration's equity agenda and the Department's mission to support equity and excellence.

The Department believes that this proposed regulatory action would not impose significant costs on eligible entities, whose participation in our programs is voluntary, and whose costs can generally be covered with grant funds. As a result, the proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions would not impose a significant burden, except when an entity voluntarily elects to apply for a grant. Moreover,the Department believes the benefits associated with the grant application would outweigh any associated costs.

The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) section of this document discusses the burden estimates for preparing an application. The potential benefits of receiving Federal funds under this program to expand the pool of and hire school-based mental health services providers will likely outweigh the application costs detailed in the PRA section. The costs of implementing the requirements established in this notice generally can be paid for with grant funds. Moreover, even an unsuccessful applicant may benefit from the effort of preparing an application, such as conducting deep data analysis about the needs in their LEA or developing partnerships with IHEs that lead to other projects.

The Department believes that the final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria in this notice are needed to administer the program effectively The priorities will enable the Department to administer a competitive grant program consistent with the intent of Congress as expressed in the Explanatory Statement accompanying the Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2022 (Pub. L. 117-103), which provided funding for the program in fiscal year 2022, and the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (Pub. L. 117-159), which provided additional funding for fiscal years 2022 through 2026.

As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/circulara004/a-4.pdf ), in the following table we have prepared an accounting statement showing the classification of the expenditures associated with the provisions of this regulatory action. This table provides our best estimate of the changes in annual monetized transfers as a result of this regulatory action.

Expenditures are classified as transfers from the Federal Government to LEAs and IHEs.

Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential memorandum “Plain Language in Government Writing” require each agency to write regulations that are easy to understand.

The Secretary invites comments on how to make the proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following:

• Are the priorities, requirements, and definitions in the proposed regulations clearly stated?

• Do the proposed regulations contain technical terms or other wording that interferes with their clarity?

• Does the format of the proposed regulations (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce their clarity?

• Would the proposed regulations be easier to understand if we divided them into more (but shorter) sections?

• Could the description of the proposed regulations in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble be more helpful in making the proposed regulations easier to understand? If so, how?

• What else could we do to make the proposed regulations easier to understand?

To send any comments that concern how the Department could make the proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions easier to understand, see the instructions in the ADDRESSES section.

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.

The Secretary certifies that this proposed regulatory action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The U.S. Small Business Administration 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 proposed regulatory action would affect are school districts and IHEs applying for and receiving funds under this program. The Secretary believes that the costs imposed on applicants by the proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions, would be limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an application and that the benefits of implementing these proposals would outweigh any costs incurred by applicants.

Participation in this program is voluntary. For this reason, the proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions would impose no burden on small entities in general. Eligible applicants would determine whether to apply for funds and have the opportunity to weigh the requirements for preparing applications, and any associated costs, against the likelihood of receiving funding and the requirements for implementing projects under the program. Eligible applicants most likely would apply only if they determine that the likely benefits exceed the costs of preparing an application. The likely benefits include the potential receipt of a grant as well as other benefits that may accrue to an entity through its development of an application, such as the use of that application to seek funding from other sources to address a shortage in mental health providers.

As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, the Department provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). This helps ensure that the public understands the Department's collection instructions, respondents provide the requested data in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the Department can properly assess the impact of collection requirements on respondents.

The proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions contain information collection requirements. Under the PRA the Department has submitted these requirements to OMB for its review.

A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless OMB approves the collection under the PRA and the corresponding information collection instrument displays a currently valid OMB control number. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to comply with, or is subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information if the collection instrument does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

In the notice of final priorities, requirements, and definitions we will display the control number assigned by OMB to any information collection proposed in this document and adopted in the notice of final priorities, requirements, and definitions.

For the years in which the Department holds a Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program competition, we estimate there will be 500 applicants based on prior competitions for the program. We estimate that it will take each applicant 40 hours to complete and submit the application, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The total burden hour estimate for this collection is 20,000 hours. At $95.46 per hour (using mean wages for Education and Childcare Administrators  13 and assuming the total cost of labor, including benefits and overhead, is equal to 200 percent of the mean wage rate), the total estimated cost for 500 applicants to complete the Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program application is approximately $1,909,200.

The Department is requesting paperwork clearance on the OMB 1810-xxxx data collection associated with the proposed requirements. That request will account for all burden hours and costs discussed within this section.

Consistent with 5 CFR 1320.8(d), the Department is soliciting comments on the information collection through this document. Between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register , OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collections of information contained in these proposed priorities, requirements, and definitions. Therefore, to ensure that OMB gives your comments full consideration, it is important that OMB receives your comments on this Information Collection Request by September 1, 2022.

Comments related to the information collection activities must be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number ED-2022-OESE-0094 or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery by referencing the Docket ID number and the title of the information collection request at the top of your comment. Comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the PRA Coordinator of the Strategic Collections and Clearance Governance and Strategy Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, LBJ, Room 6W208D, Washington, DC 20202-8240.

Note: The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and the Department review all comments related to the information collection activities posted at www.regulations.gov.

I. Executive Summary A. Does this action apply to me?

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

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

EPA is proposing several tolerance actions that the Agency previously determined were necessary or appropriate during the registration review for the identified pesticide active ingredients. During registration review, EPA reviews all aspects of a pesticide case, including existing tolerances, to ensure that the pesticide continues to meet the standard for registration in accordance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq., and that the pesticide's tolerances meet the safety standard of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFCCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a.

Specifically, EPA is proposing to:

• Modify tolerance expressions for ametryn, benfluralin, bensulfuron-methyl, bentazon, chlorpropham, diclosulam, esfenvalerate, ethoxyquin, hydramethylnon (pyrimidinone), imazaquin, phenmedipham, pyrithiobac-sodium, tefluthrin, and uniconazole-P;

• Modify commodity definitions for bispyribac-sodium, imazaquin, and uniconazole-P;

• Update crop groups for fenpropathrin and quinoxyfen;

• Remove expired tolerances for ametryn; and

• Revoke tolerances that are no longer needed for bensulfuron-methyl and chlorpropham.

Although it may not have been identified in the registration review of a particular pesticide, this rule also includes proposals to reflect the Agency's 2019 adoption of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Rounding Class Practice. Where applicable, these adjustments are proposed for specific pesticides as discussed in Unit III. of this document.

Pursuant to its authority under the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, EPA is proposing the tolerance actions in this rulemaking that the Agency previously determined were necessary or appropriate during the registration review conducted under FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

FFDCA section 408(b) authorizes EPA to establish a tolerance, if the Agency determines that a tolerance is safe; FFDCA section 408(c) authorizes EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance if the Agency determines that the exemption is safe. See 21 U.S.C. 346a(b) and (c). If EPA determines that a tolerance or exemption is not safe, EPA must modify or revoke that tolerance or exemption. Id. The FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” 21 U.S.C. 346a(b)(2)(A)(ii), (c)(2)(A)(ii). This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) requires EPA to give special consideration to the exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue[s.]” 21 U.S.C. 346a(b)(2)(C). In addition, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D) contains several factors EPA must consider when making determinations about establishing, modifying, or revoking tolerances. 21 U.S.C. 346a(b)(2)(D). FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B) requires that EPA, when making determinations about exemptions, to take into account, among other things, the considerations set forth in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) and (D). 21 U.S.C. 346a(c)(2)(B).

FFDCA section 408(e), 21 U.S.C. 346a(e), authorizes EPA to establish, modify, or revoke tolerances or exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance on its own initiative. Prior to issuing the final regulation, FFDCA section 408(e)(2) requires EPA to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking for a 60-day public comment period, unless the Administrator for good cause finds that it would be in the public interest to have a shorter period and states the reasons in the rulemaking.

Furthermore, when establishing tolerances or exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance, FFDCA sections 408(b)(3) and (c)(3) require that there be a practical method for detecting and measuring pesticide chemical residue levels in or on food, unless in the case of exemptions, EPA determines that such method is not needed and states the reasons therefor in the rulemaking. 21 U.S.C. 346a(b) and (c).

Under FIFRA section 3(g), 7 U.S.C. 136a(g), EPA is required to periodically review all registered pesticides and determine if those pesticides continue to meet the standard for registration under FIFRA. See also 40 CFR 155.40(a). Consistent with its obligations under FIFRA section 3(g) and FFDCA section 408, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information and determined it is appropriate to take the tolerance actions being proposed in this rulemaking.

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at https://www.regulations.gov/faq.

3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.

During the 60-day public comment period for this proposed rule, any person can state an interest in retaining a tolerance proposed for revocation. If EPA receives such a comment within the 60-day period, EPA will not proceed to revoke the tolerance immediately. However, EPA will take steps to ensure the submission of any needed supporting data and will issue an order in the Federal Register under FFDCA section 408(f), if needed. The order would specify data needed and the timeframes for submission of the data and would require that within 90 days some person or persons notify EPA that they will submit the data. If the data are not submitted as required in the order, EPA will take appropriate action under FFDCA.

A “tolerance” represents the maximum level for residues of pesticide chemicals legally allowed in or on food, which includes raw agricultural commodities and processed foods and feed for animals. Under the FFDCA, residues of a pesticide chemical that are not covered by a tolerance or exemption from the requirement of a tolerance are considered unsafe. See 21 U.S.C. 346a(a)(1). Foods containing unsafe residues are deemed adulterated and may not be distributed in interstate commerce. See 21 U.S.C. 331(a), 342(a)(2)(B). Consequently, for a food-use pesticide ( i.e., a pesticide use that is likely to result in residues in or on food) to be sold and distributed, the pesticide must not only have appropriate tolerances or exemptions under the FFDCA, but also must be registered under FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. Food-use pesticides not registered in the United States must have tolerances or exemptions in order for commodities treated with those pesticides to be imported into the United States. For additional information about tolerances, go to https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-tolerances/about-pesticide-tolerances.

When establishing a tolerance for residues of a pesticide, EPA must determine whether the Codex Alimentarius Commission has established a Maximum Residue Limit (MRL) for that pesticide. See 21 U.S.C. 346a(b)(4). As part of registration review, EPA identifies opportunities to harmonize with Codex MRLs for each pesticide-crop combination.

EPA periodically reviews existing registered pesticides to ensure they can continue to be used without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. The registration review program is intended to make sure that, as the ability to assess risk evolves and as policies and practices change, all registered pesticides continue to meet the FIFRA registration standard of no unreasonable adverse effects. As part of the registration review of a pesticide, EPA also evaluates whether existing tolerances are safe, whether any changes to existing tolerances are necessary or appropriate, and whether any new tolerances are necessary to cover residues from registered pesticides. Additional information about pesticide registration review is available at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation.

EPA is proposing to take the specific tolerance actions identified in this unit. Where appropriate, EPA has included the determination of safety for the pesticide actions being taken. These proposed tolerance changes are discussed in detail in the human health risk assessments conducted to support the registration review of each specific pesticide active ingredient or registration review case. In addition, these proposed tolerance changes are summarized in both the Proposed Interim Decision (PID), and in the Interim Decision (ID) for each pesticide active ingredient or registration review case. These documents can be found in the public docket that has been opened for each pesticide, which is available online at https://www.regulations.gov, using the docket ID number listed in the heading of each pesticide active ingredient included in this proposed action. To locate the relevant supporting documents, enter the specific docket ID number in the search box at https://www.regulations.gov.

EPA is proposing to revise the current tolerance expression for ametryn in 40 CFR 180.258 to describe more clearly the scope or coverage of the tolerances and the method for measuring compliance. Consistent with EPA policy, the revised tolerance expression will clarify that (1) as provided in FFDCA section 408(a)(3), the tolerances cover metabolites and degradates of ametryn not specifically mentioned; and (2) compliance with the specified tolerance levels is to be determined by measuring the specific compounds mentioned in the tolerance expression. The revisions to the tolerance expression do not substantively change the tolerances or, in any way, modify the permissible level of residues in or on the commodities listed in the regulation.

In addition, as a housekeeping measure, EPA is proposing to remove from the regulation the listing of tolerances for residues of ametryn in or on banana; corn, sweet, forage; corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed; and corn, sweet, stover, because these tolerances expired on June 16, 2010.

During registration review, EPA assessed the risks from exposure to ametryn, taking into consideration all reliable data on toxicity and exposure, including for infants and children. Based on the supporting risk assessments and registration review documents, which demonstrate that the aggregate exposure is below the Agency's level of concern, EPA concludes there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or specifically to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to ametryn residues. Thus, EPA has determined that the tolerances for residues of ametryn are safe. Adequate enforcement methodology as described in the supporting documents is available to enforce the tolerance expression. For further details, see Ametryn—Preliminary Human Health Risk Assessment for Registration Review, which can be accessed using the docket ID number listed in the heading of this unit.

EPA is proposing to revise the current tolerance expression for benfluralin in 40 CFR 180.208 to describe more clearly the scope or coverage of the tolerances and the method for measuring compliance. Consistent with EPA policy, the revised tolerance expression will clarify that (1) as provided in FFDCA section 408(a)(3), the tolerances cover metabolites and degradates of benfluralin, including its metabolites and degradates in or on the commodities not specifically mentioned; and (2) compliance with the specified tolerance levels is to be determined by measuring the specific compounds mentioned in the tolerance expression. The revisions to the tolerance expression do not substantively change the tolerances or, in any way, modify the permissible level of residues in or on the commodities listed in the regulation.

During registration review, EPA assessed the risks from exposure to benfluralin, taking into consideration all reliable data on toxicity and exposure, including for infants and children. Based on the supporting risk assessments and registration review documents, which demonstrate that the aggregate exposure is below the Agency's level of concern, EPA concludes there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or specifically to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to benfluralin residues. Thus, EPA has determined that the tolerances for residues of benfluralin are safe. Adequate enforcement methodology as described in the supporting documents is available to enforce the tolerance expression. For further details, see Benfluralin: Human Health Draft Risk Assessment for Registration Review, which can be accessed using the docket ID number listed in the heading of this unit.

EPA is proposing to revise the current tolerance expression for bensulfuron-methyl in 40 CFR 180.445 to describe more clearly the scope or coverage of the tolerances and the method for measuring compliance. Consistent with EPA policy, the revised tolerance expression will clarify that (1) as provided in FFDCA section 408(a), the tolerances cover metabolites and degradates of bensulfuron-methyl not specifically mentioned; and (2) compliance with the specified tolerance levels is to be determined by measuring the specific compounds mentioned in the tolerance expression. The revisions to the tolerance expression do not substantively change the tolerances or, in any way, modify the permissible level of residues in or on the commodities listed in the regulation.

Additionally, EPA is proposing to clarify the spelling of the chemical name with a hyphen between bensulfuron and methyl.

During registration review, EPA assessed the risks from exposure to bensulfuron-methyl, taking into consideration all reliable data on toxicity and exposure, including for infants and children. Based on the supporting risk assessments and registration review documents, which demonstrate that the aggregate exposure is below the Agency's level of concern, EPA concludes there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or specifically to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to bensulfuron-methyl residues. Thus, EPA has determined that the tolerances for residues of bensulfuron-methyl are safe. Adequate enforcement methodology as described in the supporting documents is available to enforce the tolerance expression. For further details, see Bensulfuron-methyl. Human Health Risk Assessment for Registration Review, which can be accessed using the docket ID number listed in the heading of this unit.

EPA is proposing to revise the current tolerance expressions for bentazon in 40 CFR 180.355 to describe more clearly the scope or coverage of the tolerances for raw agricultural commodities and for livestock commodities and the method for measuring compliance. Consistent with EPA policy, the revised tolerance expressions will clarify that (1) as provided in FFDCA section 408(a)(1), the tolerances cover metabolites and degradates of bentazon not specifically mentioned; and (2) compliance with the specified tolerance levels is to be determined by measuring the specific compounds mentioned in the tolerance expressions. The revisions to the tolerance expressions do not substantively change the tolerances or, in any way, modify the permissible level of residues in or on the commodities listed in the regulation.

During registration review, EPA assessed the risks from exposure to bentazon, taking into consideration all reliable data on toxicity and exposure, including for infants and children. Based on the supporting risk assessments and registration review documents, which demonstrate that the aggregate exposure is below the Agency's level of concern, EPA concludes there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or specifically to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to bentazon residues. Thus, EPA has determined that the tolerances for residues of bentazon are safe. Adequate enforcement methodology as described in the supporting documents is available to enforce the tolerance expression. For further details, see Sodium Bentazon—Preliminary Human Health Risk Assessment for Registration Review, which can be accessed using the docket ID number listed in the heading of this unit.

EPA is proposing to modify the commodity definition in 40 CFR 180.577 for “Fish, freshwater” to the correct definition of “Fish, freshwater, finfish.” This revision will help facilitate efficient commodity searches and does not substantively change the tolerance or, in any way, modify the permissible level of residues in or on the commodity listed in the regulation.

During registration review, EPA assessed the risks from exposure to bispyribac-sodium, taking into consideration all reliable data on toxicity and exposure, including for infants and children. Based on the supporting risk assessments and registration review documents, which demonstrate that the aggregate exposure is below the Agency's level of concern, EPA concludes there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or specifically to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to bispyribac-sodium residues. Thus, EPA has determined that the tolerances for residues of bispyribac-sodium are safe. Adequate enforcement methodology as described in the supporting documents is available to enforce the tolerance expression. For further details, see Bispyribac-sodium. Draft Human Health Risk Assessment for Registration Review, which can be accessed using the docket ID number listed in the heading of this unit.

EPA is proposing to revise the current tolerance expressions for chlorpropham in 40 CFR 180.181 to describe more clearly the scope or coverage of the tolerances for raw agricultural commodities and livestock commodities and the method for measuring compliance. Consistent with EPA policy, the revised tolerance expressions will clarify that (1) as provided in FFDCA section 408(a)(1), the tolerances cover metabolites and degradates of chlorpropham not specifically mentioned; and (2) compliance with the specified tolerance levels is to be determined by measuring the specific compounds mentioned in the tolerance expressions. The revisions to the tolerance expressions do not substantively change the tolerances or, in any way, modify the permissible level of residues in or on the commodities listed in the regulation.

EPA is proposing to revoke tolerances in 40 CFR 180.181 for residues of chlorpropham in or on hog, fat; hog, kidney; hog, meat; and hog, meat byproducts except kidney, which are no longer needed because potatoes and potato, wet peel are no longer hog feed items.

During registration review, EPA assessed the risks from exposure to chlorpropham, taking into consideration all reliable data on toxicity and exposure, including for infants and children. Based on the supporting risk assessments and registration review documents, which demonstrate that the aggregate exposure is below the Agency's level of concern, EPA concludes there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or specifically to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to chlorpropham residues. Thus, EPA has determined that the tolerances for residues of chlorpropham are safe. Adequate enforcement methodology as described in the supporting documents is available to enforce the tolerance expression. For further details, see Chlorpropham. Draft Human Health Risk Assessment for Registration Review, which can be accessed using the docket ID number listed in the heading of this unit.

EPA is proposing to revise the current tolerance expression for diclosulam in 40 CFR 180.543 to describe more clearly the scope or coverage of the tolerances and the method for measuring compliance. Consistent with EPA policy, the revised tolerance expression will clarify (1) that, as provided in FFDCA section 408(a)(3), the tolerance covers metabolites and degradates of diclosulam not specifically mentioned; and (2) that compliance with the specified tolerance levels is to be determined by measuring the specific compounds mentioned in the tolerance expression. The revision to the tolerance expression does not substantively change the tolerance or, in any way, modify the permissible level of residues permitted by the tolerances.

During registration review, EPA assessed the risks from exposure to diclosulam, taking into consideration all reliable data on toxicity and exposure, including for infants and children. Based on the supporting risk assessments and registration review documents, which demonstrate that the aggregate exposure is below the Agency's level of concern, EPA concludes there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or specifically to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to diclosulam residues. Thus, EPA has determined that the tolerances for residues of diclosulam are safe. Adequate enforcement methodology as described in the supporting documents is available to enforce the tolerance expression. For further details, see Diclosulam. Human Health Assessment Scoping Document and Preliminary Human Health Risk Assessment in Support of Registration Review, which can be accessed using the docket ID number listed in the heading of this unit.

EPA is proposing to revise the current tolerance expressions for esfenvalerate in 40 CFR 180.533 for metabolites and degradates of general food commodities, raw agricultural food commodities, and for tolerances with regional registrations, to describe more clearly the scope or coverage of the tolerances and the method for measuring compliance. Consistent with EPA policy, the revised tolerance expression will clarify (1) that, as provided in FFDCA section 408(a)(3), the tolerance covers metabolites and degradates of esfenvalerate not specifically mentioned; and (2) that compliance with the specified tolerance levels is to be determined by measuring the specific compounds mentioned in the tolerance expression. The revisions to the tolerance expressions do not substantively change the tolerance or, in any way, modify the permissible level of residues permitted by the tolerances.

During registration review, EPA assessed the risks from exposure to esfenvalerate, taking into consideration all reliable data on toxicity and exposure, including for infants and children. Based on the supporting risk assessments and registration review documents, which demonstrate that the aggregate exposure is below the Agency's level of concern, EPA concludes there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or specifically to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to esfenvalerate residues. Thus, EPA has determined that the tolerances for residues of esfenvalerate are safe. Adequate enforcement methodology as described in the supporting documents is available to enforce the tolerance expression. For further details, see Esfenvalerate. Draft Human Health Risk Assessment for Registration Review, which can be accessed using the docket ID number listed in the heading of this unit.

EPA is proposing to revise the current tolerance expression for ethoxyquin in 40 CFR 180.178 to describe more clearly the scope or coverage of the tolerances and the method for measuring compliance. Consistent with EPA policy, the revised tolerance expression will clarify (1) that, as provided in FFDCA section 408(a)(3), the tolerance covers metabolites and degradates of ethoxyquin not specifically mentioned; and (2) that compliance with the specified tolerance levels is to be determined by measuring the specific compounds mentioned in the tolerance expression. The revisions to the tolerance expression do not substantively change the tolerance or, in any way, modify the permissible level of residues permitted by the tolerances.

During registration review, EPA assessed the risks from exposure to ethoxyquin, taking into consideration all reliable data on toxicity and exposure, including for infants and children. Based on the supporting risk assessments and registration review documents, which demonstrate that the aggregate exposure is below the Agency's level of concern, EPA concludes there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or specifically to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to ethoxyquin residues. Thus, EPA has determined that the tolerances for residues of ethoxyquin are safe. Adequate enforcement methodology as described in the supporting documents is available to enforce the tolerance expression. For further details, see Ethoxyquin: Draft Human Health Risk Assessment in Support of Registration Review, which can be accessed using the docket ID number listed in the heading of this unit.

EPA is proposing to update the existing crop groups in 40 CFR 180.466 for “fruit, stone, Crop Group 12, except cherry” to the updated subgroups for peach and plum and cherry and for “nut, tree crop group 14” to the updated crop group 14-12. 40 CFR 180.40(j) states that “At appropriate times, EPA will amend tolerances for crop groups that have been superseded by revised crop groups to conform the pre-existing crop group to the revised crop group (40 CFR 180.41).”

During registration review, EPA assessed the risks from exposure to fenpropathrin, taking into consideration all reliable data on toxicity and exposure, including for infants and children. Based on the supporting risk assessments and registration review documents, which demonstrate that the aggregate exposure is below the Agency's level of concern, EPA concludes there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or specifically to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to fenpropathrin residues. Thus, EPA has determined that the tolerances for residues of fenpropathrin are safe. Adequate enforcement methodology as described in the supporting documents is available to enforce the tolerance expression. For further details, see Fenpropathrin. Draft Human Health Risk Assessment for Registration Review and the Fenpropathrin Interim Registration Review Decision, which can be accessed using the docket ID number listed in the heading of this unit.

EPA is proposing to add the chemical name “(Pyrimidinone)” in the title in 40 CFR 180.395 to more accurately reflect the chemical covered by the tolerances in that section.

EPA is also proposing to revise the current tolerance expression for hydramethylnon to describe more clearly the scope or coverage of the tolerances and the method for measuring compliance. Consistent with EPA policy, the revised tolerance expression will clarify (1) that, as provided in FFDCA section 408(a)(3), the tolerance covers metabolites and degradates of hydramethylnon not specifically mentioned; and (2) that compliance with the specified tolerance levels is to be determined by measuring the specific compounds mentioned in the tolerance expression. The revisions to the tolerance expression do not substantively change the tolerance or, in any way, modify the permissible level of residues permitted by the tolerances.

During registration review, EPA assessed the risks from exposure to hydramethylnon, taking into consideration all reliable data on toxicity and exposure, including for infants and children. Based on the supporting risk assessments and registration review documents, which demonstrate that the aggregate exposure is below the Agency's level of concern, EPA concludes there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or specifically to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to hydramethylnon residues. Thus, EPA has determined that the tolerances for residues of hydramethylnon are safe. Adequate enforcement methodology as described in the supporting documents is available to enforce the tolerance expression. For further details, see Hydramethylnon. Draft Human Health Risk Assessment for Registration Review, and Hydramethylnon. Addendum to Draft Human Health Risk Assessment for Registration Review, which can be accessed using the docket ID number listed in the heading of this unit.

EPA is proposing to revise the chemical name to add “Imazaquin” to the title for 40 CFR 180.426. EPA is also proposing to revise the current tolerance expression in to describe more clearly the scope or coverage of the tolerances and the method for measuring compliance. Consistent with EPA policy, the revised tolerance expression will clarify (1) that, as provided in FFDCA section 408(a)(3), the tolerance covers metabolites and degradates of imazaquin not specifically mentioned; and (2) that compliance with the specified tolerance levels is to be determined by measuring the specific compounds mentioned in the tolerance expression. In addition, EPA is proposing to add a table to paragraph (a)(1) and to update the commodity definition from “Soybean” to “Soybean, seed.” The revisions to the tolerance expression and commodity definition for soybean do not substantively change the tolerance or, in any way, modify the permissible level of residues permitted by the tolerances.

During registration review, EPA assessed the risks from exposure to imazaquin, taking into consideration all reliable data on toxicity and exposure, including for infants and children. Based on the supporting risk assessments and registration review documents, which demonstrate that the aggregate exposure is below the Agency's level of concern, EPA concludes there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or specifically to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to imazaquin residues. Thus, EPA has determined that the tolerances for residues of imazaquin are safe. Adequate enforcement methodology as described in the supporting documents is available to enforce the tolerance expression. For further details, see Imazaquin: Draft Human Health Risk Assessment for Registration Review, which can be accessed using the docket ID number listed in the heading of this unit.

EPA is proposing to revise the current tolerance expression for phenmedipham in 40 CFR 180.278 to describe more clearly the scope or coverage of the tolerances and the method for measuring compliance. Consistent with EPA policy, the revised tolerance expression will clarify that (1) as provided in FFDCA section 408(a)(3), the tolerances cover metabolites and degradates of phenmedipham not specifically mentioned; and (2) compliance with the specified tolerance levels is to be determined by measuring the specific compounds mentioned in the tolerance expression. The revision to the tolerance expression does not substantively change the tolerances or, in any way, modify the permissible level of residues permitted by the tolerances.

During registration review, EPA assessed the risks from exposure to phenmedipham, taking into consideration all reliable data on toxicity and exposure, including for infants and children. Based on the supporting risk assessments and registration review documents, which demonstrate that the aggregate exposure is below the Agency's level of concern, EPA concludes there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or specifically to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to phenmedipham residues. Thus, EPA has determined that the tolerances for residues of phenmedipham are safe. Adequate enforcement methodology as described in the supporting documents is available to enforce the tolerance expression. For further details, see Phenmedipham Scoping Document and Draft Human Health Risk Assessment in Support of Registration Review, which can be accessed using the docket ID number listed in the heading of this unit.

EPA is proposing to revise the current tolerance expression for pyrithiobac-sodium to describe more clearly the scope or coverage of the tolerances and the method for measuring compliance. Consistent with EPA policy, the revised tolerance expression will clarify that (1) as provided in FFDCA section 408(a)(3), the tolerances cover metabolites and degradates of pyrithiobac-sodium not specifically mentioned; and (2) that compliance with the specified tolerance levels is to be determined by measuring the specific compounds mentioned in the tolerance expression. The revisions to the tolerance expression do not substantively change the tolerance or, in any way, modify the permissible level of residues permitted by the tolerances. EPA is also proposing to add a hyphen in the chemical name used in the heading in 40 CFR 180.487, to read “pyrithiobac-sodium.”

During registration review, EPA assessed the risks from exposure to pyrithiobac-sodium, taking into consideration all reliable data on toxicity and exposure, including for infants and children. Based on the supporting risk assessments and registration review documents, which demonstrate that the aggregate exposure is below the Agency's level of concern, EPA concludes there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or specifically to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to pyrithiobac-sodium residues. Thus, EPA has determined that the tolerances for residues of pyrithiobac-sodium are safe. Adequate enforcement methodology as described in the supporting documents is available to enforce the tolerance expression. For further details, see Pyrithiobac-Sodium: Human Health Draft Risk Assessment for Registration Review, which can be accessed using the docket ID number listed in the heading of this unit.

EPA is proposing to convert existing crop group tolerances for residues of quinoxyfen in 40 CFR 180.588 to updated crop group tolerances. EPA is proposing to convert the existing crop group “Fruit, stone, group 12” to the updated crop group “Fruit, stone, group 12-12”. This conversion would modify existing tolerances for commodities in that crop group and establish new tolerances for commodities in the updated crop group. 40 CFR 180.40(j) states that “At appropriate times, EPA will amend tolerances for crop groups that have been superseded by revised crop groups to conform the pre-existing crop group to the revised crop group.” EPA has indicated in updates to its crop group rulemakings that registration review is one of those appropriate times. See, e.g., Tolerance Crop Grouping Program V, 85 FR 70976, 70982 (Nov. 6, 2020). As part of registration review, EPA identified tolerances for residues of quinoxyfen in or on commodities in crop groups that have been updated since those tolerances were initially established. In addition, as indicated above, EPA is removing the trailing zero from the current “Fruit, stone, group 12” tolerance, so that it will be 0.7 ppm, to be consistent with the OECD Rounding Class Practice.

During registration review, EPA assessed the risks from exposure to quinoxyfen, taking into consideration all reliable data on toxicity and exposure, including for infants and children. Based on the supporting risk assessments and registration review documents, which demonstrate that the aggregate exposure is below the Agency's level of concern, EPA concludes there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or specifically to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to quinoxyfen residues. Thus, EPA has determined that the tolerances for residues of quinoxyfen are safe. Adequate enforcement methodology as described in the supporting documents is available to enforce the tolerance expression. For further details, see Quinoxyfen. Draft Human Health Risk Assessment for Registration Review, which can be accessed using the docket ID number listed in the heading of this unit.

EPA is proposing to revise the current tolerance expression for tefluthrin in 40 CFR 180.440 to describe more clearly the scope or coverage of the tolerances and the method for measuring compliance. Consistent with EPA policy, the revised tolerance expression will clarify that (1) as provided in FFDCA section 408(a)(3), the tolerance covers metabolites and degradates of tefluthrin not specifically mentioned; and (2) compliance with the specified tolerance levels is to be determined by measuring the specific compounds mentioned in the tolerance expression. The revisions to the tolerance expression do not substantively change the tolerance or, in any way, modify the permissible level of residues permitted by the tolerances.

During registration review, EPA assessed the risks from exposure to tefluthrin, taking into consideration all reliable data on toxicity and exposure, including for infants and children. Based on the supporting risk assessments and registration review documents, which demonstrate that the aggregate exposure is below the Agency's level of concern, EPA concludes there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or specifically to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to tefluthrin residues. Thus, EPA has determined that the tolerances for residues of tefluthrin are safe. Adequate enforcement methodology as described in the supporting documents is available to enforce the tolerance expression. For further details, see Tefluthrin. Revised Human Health Risk Assessment, which can be accessed using the docket ID number listed in the heading of this unit.

The Agency is proposing to revise the tolerance expression for uniconazole-P to describe more clearly the scope or coverage of the tolerance and the method for measuring compliance. Consistent with EPA policy, the revised tolerance expression will clarify that (1) as provided in FFDCA section 408(a)(3), the tolerance covers metabolites and degradates of uniconazole-P not specifically mentioned; and (2) in 40 CFR 180.643 compliance with the specified tolerance level is to be determined by measuring the specific compounds mentioned in the tolerance expression. The Agency is also proposing to convert the existing crop group tolerance for “Vegetable, fruiting, group 8” to the updated crop group tolerance for “Vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10.” The tolerance level of 0.01 ppm would remain the same. 40 CFR 180.40(j) states that “At appropriate times, EPA will amend tolerances for crop groups that have been superseded by revised crop groups to conform the pre-existing crop group to the revised crop group.” EPA has indicated in updates to its crop group rulemakings that registration review is one of those appropriate times. See, e.g., Tolerance Crop Grouping Program V, (85 FR 70976, 70982) (Nov. 6, 2020). Additionally, EPA is proposing to clarify the chemical name in the title in 40 CFR 180.643 from “Uniconazole” to “Uniconazole-P” to more accurately reflect the chemical covered by the tolerances in that section.

During registration review, EPA assessed the risks from exposure to uniconazole-P, taking into consideration all reliable data on toxicity and exposure, including for infants and children. Based on the supporting risk assessments and registration review documents, which demonstrate that the aggregate exposure is below the Agency's level of concern, EPA concludes there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or specifically to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to uniconazole-P residues. Thus, EPA has determined that the tolerances for residues of uniconazole-P are safe. Adequate enforcement methodology as described in the supporting documents is available to enforce the tolerance expression. For further detail, see Uniconazole-P. Draft Human Health Risk Assessment for Registration Review, which can be accessed using the docket ID number listed in the heading of this unit.

EPA is proposing that these tolerance actions would become effective six months after the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register . EPA is proposing this effective date to allow a reasonable interval for producers in exporting members of the World Trade Organization's (WTO's) Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures Agreement to adapt to the requirements of certain actions being taken in the final rule.

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

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions ( e.g., the establishment and modification of a tolerance and tolerance revocations for which extraordinary circumstances do not exist) from review under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). This exemption applies for the tolerance revocations in this proposed rule because the Agency knows of no extraordinary circumstances that warrant reconsideration of this exemption for those actions.

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., because it does not contain any information collection activities ( i.e., no recordkeeping, reporting or third-party disclosure requirements).

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. In making this determination, EPA concludes that the impact of concern for this rule is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities subject to the requirements of this action and that the Agency is certifying that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the rule has no net burden on small entities subject to the rule.

This takes into account an EPA analysis for tolerance establishments and modifications that published in the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950) (FRL-1809-5) and for tolerance revocations on December 17, 1997 (62 FR 66020) (FRL-5753-1). Furthermore, for the pesticides named in this proposed rule, the Agency knows of no extraordinary circumstances that exist as to the present proposed rule that would change EPA's previous analysis. Additionally, in a memorandum dated May 25, 2001, EPA determined that eight conditions must all be satisfied in order for an import tolerance or tolerance exemption revocation to adversely affect a significant number of small entity importers, and that there is a negligible joint probability of all eight conditions holding simultaneously with respect to any particular revocation. See Memorandum from Denise Keehner, Division Director, Biological and Economic Analysis Division, Office of Pesticide Programs to Public Docket concerning Tolerance Revocation Rulemaking, Proposed or Final, “RFA/SBREFA Certification for Import Tolerance Revocation”, dated May 25, 2001, which is available in the docket. Any comments about the Agency's determination should be submitted to the EPA along with comments on the proposed rule and will be addressed prior to issuing a final rule.

This action does not contain an unfunded mandate or impose an enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal government as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Accordingly, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202, 203, or 205 of UMRA.

This action does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. This proposed rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States.

This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866 and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. Chemical specific health and safety risk assessments for each chemical are discussed in section III. Proposed Tolerance Actions.

This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy and has not otherwise been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

This action does not involve technical standards that would require Agency consideration under NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272.

In accordance with Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) and Executive Order 14008 (86 FR 7619, January 27, 2021), EPA finds that this action will not result in disproportionately high and adverse human health, environmental, climate-related, or other cumulative impacts on disadvantaged communities.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR chapter I as follows:

The revision and addition read as follows:§ 180.178 Ethoxyquin; tolerances for residues.

(a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of ethoxyquin, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in table 1 to this paragraph (a). Compliance with the tolerance levels specified in table 1 is to be determined by measuring only ethoxyquin (1,2-dihydro-6-ethoxy-2,2,4-trimethylquinoline) in or on the commodity.

Background

The recreational fishery for Gulf of Maine (GOM) cod and GOM haddock is managed under the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The multispecies fishing year starts on May 1 and runs through April 30 of the following calendar year. The FMP sets sub-annual catch limits (sub-ACL) for the recreational fishery each fishing year for both stocks. These sub-ACLs are a fixed proportion of the overall catch limit for each stock. The FMP also includes proactive recreational accountability measures (AM) to prevent the recreational sub-ACLs from being exceeded and reactive AMs to correct the cause or mitigate the effects of an overage if one occurs.

The proactive AM provision in the FMP provides a process for the Regional Administrator, in consultation with the New England Fishery Management Council, to develop recreational management measures for the upcoming fishing year to ensure that the recreational sub-ACL is achieved, but not exceeded. The provisions governing this action can be found in the FMP's implementing regulations at 50 CFR 648.89(f)(3).

The 2022 recreational sub-ACL proposed in Framework Adjustment 63 (87 FR 23482; April 20, 2022) for GOM cod is 192 mt and the 2022 recreational sub-ACL for GOM haddock is 3,634 mt, as set by Framework Adjustment 59 (85 FR 45794; July 30, 2020).

Using the proposed GOM cod and GOM haddock 2022 sub-ACLs and a peer-reviewed bioeconomic model developed by NMFS's Northeast Fisheries Science Center that predicts fishing behavior under different management measures, we estimated 2022 recreational GOM cod and haddock removals under several combinations of minimum sizes, slot limits, possession limits, and closed seasons. The bioeconomic model considers measures for the two stocks in conjunction because cod are commonly caught while recreational participants are targeting haddock, linking the catch and effort for each stock to the other. The bioeconomic model results suggest that measures for both GOM cod and haddock can be liberalized somewhat without the 2022 recreational fishery's sub-ACLs being exceeded. With any given model, however, there exists some level of uncertainty in the accuracy of model predictions. As in past years, we used preliminary data from the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) for this fishing year. Incorporation of new waves, or data updates, may result in changes in model estimates. MRIP data can be uncertain and highly variable from year to year.

For each of the sets of management measures, 100 simulations of the bioeconomic model were conducted, and the number of simulations which yielded recreational mortality estimates under the sub-ACL was used as an estimate of the probability that the simulated set of measures will not result in an overage of the sub-ACL. All sets of measures analyzed resulted in model-estimated removals under the sub-ACL greater than 50 percent of the time. The results of the bioeconomic model runs were shared with the Council and its Recreational Advisory Panel and Groundfish Committee for review.

At its February 2022 meeting, the Council recommended a set of measures that would increase the minimum size for GOM cod from 21 inches (53.3 cm) to 22 inches (55.9 cm) and include no maximum size. The Council discussed options for GOM cod slot limits that would match those for Georges Bank cod included in Framework Adjustment 63 (proposed rule, 87 FR 23482; April 20, 2022). However, the Council did not recommend a maximum size for GOM cod because model runs suggested it was not necessary to adequately constrain catch. The minimum size requirements apply to all private recreational anglers and for-hire vessels not fishing under a groundfish day-at-sea or sector operations plan. The Council also recommended synchronizing the open season for GOM cod for both for-hire and private recreational modes, with a spring open season from April 1-14, and a fall open season from September 1-October 7. The Council recommended increasing the GOM haddock possession limit from 15 fish to 20. The bag limit for GOM cod during open season would remain 1 fish per angler. Based on model runs, these measures are expected to result in catch of cod and haddock that would not exceed the sub-ACL for either stock (Table 1).

We are proposing to implement the Council's recommended recreational measures for the remainder of fishing year 2022. These measures are expected to adequately constrain total catch to prevent an overage of both the GOM cod and GOM haddock recreational sub-ACL's, while increasing recreational fishing opportunities and harvest of the GOM haddock stock by the recreational and for-hire fleets. Synchronizing the open seasons for GOM cod is also prudent, because the longer for-hire season under status quo measures was previously established to offset the impacts of social distancing restrictions on for-hire businesses, which are no longer in place. Synchronized measures should also improve regulatory compliance by minimizing confusion among the angling public.

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), has made a determination that this proposed rule is consistent with the Northeast Multispecies FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries finds good cause to have a 15-day comment period in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act and as provided for in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This rulemaking proposes more liberal management measures for GOM haddock and GOM cod compared to status quo recreational management measures. The Northeast multispecies fishing year begins on May 1 of each year and continues through April 30 of the following calendar year. Further delaying final action on these proposed measures to allow for a longer comment period than the minimum 15-day amount allowed for by the Magnuson-Stevens Act would diminish the value to the public of increasing the haddock possession limit and the more liberal measures. Additional time for comment may unnecessarily negatively affect business planning for the for-hire segment of the fishery. This rulemaking is straightforward and proposes changes that were discussed during a series of public meetings. These are yearly measures that are familiar to and anticipated by fishery participants. Affected and other interested parties participated in the Council's process to develop this action that provides for extensive opportunity to comment about the measures and their impacts.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

For Regulatory Flexibility Act purposes only, NMFS established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts less than $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. A small for-hire recreational fishing business is defined as a firm with receipts of up to $7.5 million. For purposes of this assessment, business entities have been classified into the SBA-defined categories based on which activity produced the highest percentage of average annual gross revenues from 2018-2020, the most recent 3-year period for which data are available. Ownership data identify all individuals who own fishing vessels. Using this information, vessels can be grouped together according to common owners. The resulting groupings were treated as a fishing business for purposes of this analysis. Revenues summed across all vessels in a group and the activities that generate those revenues form the basis for determining whether the entity is a large or small business.

As the for-hire owner is permitted and required to comply with these measures and can be held liable under the law for violations of the proposed regulations, for-hire business entities are considered directly affected in this analysis. Private anglers are not considered “entities” under the RFA.

For-hire fishing businesses are required to obtain a Federal charter/party multispecies fishing permit in order to carry passengers to catch cod or haddock. Limited access permit holders may also take passengers for-hire; however, most limited access permit holders do not take passengers for hire. Thus, for the purposes of this action, the affected businesses entities of concern are businesses that hold Federal multispecies for-hire fishing permits. While all business entities that hold for-hire permits could be affected by changes in recreational fishing restrictions, not all business that hold for-hire permits actively participate in a given year. Those who actively participate, i.e., land fish, would be the group of business entities that are affected by the regulations. Latent fishing power (in the form of unfished permits) has the potential to alter the impacts on a fishery, but it is not possible to predict how many of these latent business entities will participate in this fishery in fishing year 2022. The Northeast Federal landings database ( i.e., vessel trip report data) indicates that a total of 750 vessels held a multispecies for-hire fishing permit in 2020 (the most recent full year of available data). Of the 750 for-hire permitted vessels, only 190 actively participated in the for-hire Atlantic cod and haddock fishery in fishing year 2020 ( i.e., reported catch of cod or haddock).

Using vessel ownership information and vessel trip report data, it was determined that the 190 for-hire vessels actively participating in the fishery are owned by 179 unique fishing business entities. The vast majority of the 179 fishing businesses were solely engaged in for-hire fishing, but some also earned revenue from shellfish and/or finfish fishing. The highest percentage of annual gross revenues for all but 16 of the fishing businesses was from for-hire fishing.

Average annual gross revenue estimates calculated from the most recent three years (2018-2020) indicate that none of the 179 fishing business entities had annual receipts of more than $3.8 million from all their fishing activities (for-hire, shellfish, and finfish). Therefore, all the affected fishing business entities are considered “small” by the SBA size standards and thus this action will not disproportionately affect small versus large for-hire business entities.

The measures proposed in this action are intended to increase opportunities for anglers to harvest GOM haddock and expand the season for GOM cod. These measures would allow party/charter operators greater opportunities to market trips to potential customers, which is expected to have a positive economic impact. As a result, we expect the impact of these measures on impacted entities to be positive. Because the changes to the seasons and bag limits are relatively minor, the positive effect is not expected to be substantial. For these reasons, NMFS has determined that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

This proposed rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

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

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

The blueline tilefish fishery north of the North Carolina/Virginia border is managed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council under the Tilefish Fishery Management Plan (FMP), which outlines the Council's process for establishing annual specifications. Blueline tilefish south of the North Carolina/Virginia border are managed by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council under the Snapper Grouper FMP.

The Tilefish FMP requires the Mid-Atlantic Council to recommend acceptable biological catch (ABC), annual catch limit (ACL), annual catch target (ACT), total allowable landings (TAL), and other management measures for the commercial and recreational sectors of the fishery, for up to three years at a time. The Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) provides an ABC recommendation to the Council to derive these catch limits. The Council makes recommendations to NMFS that cannot exceed the recommendation of its SSC. The Council's recommendations must include supporting documentation concerning the environmental, economic, and social impacts of the recommendations. We are responsible for reviewing these recommendations to ensure that they achieve the FMP objectives and are consistent with all applicable laws. Following review, NMFS publishes the final specifications in the Federal Register .

In 2017, a benchmark assessment of the blueline tilefish population along the entire East Coast was conducted through the Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review process (SEDAR 50). Due to data limitations, the coast-wide population was modeled separately north and south of Cape Hatteras, NC. To assist in developing a recommendation for acceptable biological catch (ABC), the Mid- and South Atlantic Councils' Scientific and Statistical Committees (SSC), as well as staff from the Northeast and Southeast Fisheries Science Centers, formed a joint subcommittee to examine available information for the region north of Cape Hatteras, and to develop separate catch advice for each Councils' jurisdiction.

At its March 2018 meeting, the Mid-Atlantic SSC reviewed the output from the SEDAR 50 benchmark stock assessment as well as additional work using the Data-Limited Methods Toolkit (DLMTool) and derived an ABC recommendation using the Mid-Atlantic Council's risk policy. The resulting ABC was 179,500 lb (81.4 mt) for 2019-2021 for the region north of Cape Hatteras. The SSC then followed the recommendation of the Joint Mid- and South Atlantic Blueline Tilefish Subcommittee to distribute 56 percent of that ABC to the Mid-Atlantic Council (north of the VA/NC border) and 44 percent to the South Atlantic Council. This percentage breakdown is based on the catch distribution from the 2017 Pilot Blueline Tilefish Longline Survey.

At its March 2021 meeting, the Mid-Atlantic SSC used the 2018 approach to recommend a status quo ABC of 100,520 lb (45.6 mt) for the 2022-2024 fishing years for the region north of Cape Hatteras. The SSC made this recommendation under consideration of recent fishery performance, lack of an updated assessment, the need to synchronize the Mid-Atlantic specifications cycle with a SEDAR assessment scheduled for 2024/2025, and the high degree of uncertainty within the recreational sector. A summary of the Council's recommended specifications is shown below in Table 1.

The Council's recommendations are consistent with the SSC's recommended ABC.

There were no other recommended changes to commercial or recreational management measures. The 2022 fishing year began on January 1, 2022, and the fishery is operating under a rollover provision.

Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Tilefish FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.

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

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

For Regulatory Flexibility Act purposes, NMFS has established a size standard for small businesses, including their affiliated operations, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as small if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11.0 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. The determination as to whether the entity is large or small is based on the average annual revenue for the three years from 2018 through 2020. Data was used from 2018 to 2020, not 2021, because 2020 is the most recent full year of ownership data available. The Small Business Administration has established size standards for all other major industry sectors in the U.S., including defining for-hire fishing firms (NAICS code 487210) as small when their receipts are equal to or less than $8 million.

The measures proposed in this action apply to vessels that hold a federal permit for blueline tilefish. Some entities own multiple vessels with tilefish permits. The most recent ownership data indicates that 1,096 business entities hold at least one permit that the proposed action potentially regulations. All 1,096 business entities identified could be directly regulated by this proposed action. Of these, 1,096 entities are commercial entities. Based on 2018-2020 revenues, 1,087 of the commercial entities are classified as small businesses and 9 are classified as large businesses. All 222 for-hire entities are categorized as small businesses.

The specifications are not proposed to change, so there should be no negative impacts on these small businesses compared to recent operations, and this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.