The FRTIB administers the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), which was established by the Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986 (FERSA), Public Law 99-335, 100 Stat. 514. The TSP provisions of FERSA are codified, as amended, largely at 5 U.S.C. 8351 and 8401-79. The TSP is a tax-deferred retirement savings plan for federal civilian employees and members of the uniformed services. The TSP is similar to cash or deferred arrangements established for private-sector employees under section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 401(k)).

The TSP Modernization Act of 2017 (the “Act”), Public Law 115-84 (131 Stat. 1272), signed into law on November 17, 2017, permits the TSP to offer participants additional withdrawal options and flexibility. In addition, the Act eliminates the requirement that a TSP participant who has reached age 70 1/2 and is separated from federal service make a full withdrawal election with respect to his or her TSP account.

On June 10, 2019, the FRTIB published a proposed rule with request for comments in the Federal Register (84 FR 26769). The FRTIB received one or more comments from eighteen individuals. As described in more detail below, the comments received relate to changes that are prohibited by FERSA or other laws or unduly burdensome to implement from an administrative perspective; therefore, the FRTIB is publishing the proposed rule as final without change.

Six individuals requested the ability to convert a traditional balance to a Roth balance within the TSP. The FRTIB has, in the past, considered allowing in-plan Roth conversions and ultimately concluded that the tax complexities involved and, in particular, the potential irreversible financial pitfalls for participants, weighed against doing so. Revisiting this decision was outside the scope of implementing the changes permitted by the Act.

Two commentators expressed concern about the amount of paperwork required by the spousal consent rules applicable to married Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS) and uniformed services participants, particularly with respect to changes to installment payments. Spousal consent is statutorily required by 5 U.S.C. 8435(a)(1)(B) any time a married FERS or uniformed services participant (1) elects a TSP withdrawal in any form other than a joint life annuity with a 50 percent survivor benefit, level payments, and no cash refund; or (2) changes a withdrawal election, which includes a change to the amount or frequency of previously elected installment payments. Allowing a participant to make changes to the amount or frequency of his or her installment payments without spousal consent would undermine the protection the spousal consent rule is designed to provide by allowing a participant to effectively drain his or her account balance via a small number of large installment payments without his or her spouse's knowledge.

Two individuals requested that, in addition to allowing withdrawals from a traditional balance only or Roth balance only, a participant be allowed to elect to withdraw amounts from his or her tax-exempt balance only. A participant's tax-exempt balance does not constitute a separate contract under 26 U.S.C. 72(d) and, therefore, the FRTIB is prohibited by the Internal Revenue Code from offering this option.

Two commentators suggested that participants be allowed to make fund-specific withdrawals from their TSP accounts, an option that the FRTIB did consider. Because the volume of withdrawal transactions processed by the TSP is so large, its withdrawal election form processing is highly automated. As a result, the complexity involved in updating withdrawal election forms and the associated programming to permit fund-specific withdrawals renders this option impracticable at this time.

One commentator asked that post-separation withdrawals be exempt from the 10 percent additional early distribution tax regardless of the participant's age. The Internal Revenue Code governs when this penalty will apply. Under 26 U.S.C. 72(t)(1), the 10 percent additional early distribution generally applies to any post-separation withdrawal taken by a TSP participant before he or she reaches age 59 1/2 .

Finally, one individual expressed frustration that the changes do not permit a participant to make a single withdrawal election from his or her traditional balance and Roth balance in a percentage other than pro rata. The FRTIB considered allowing this but determined that doing so was unfeasible from an administrative perspective. A participant will still be able to accomplish the end goal by making two separate withdrawal elections—one from his or her traditional balance only and one from his or her Roth balance only.

I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulation will affect Federal employees, members of the uniformed services who participate in the TSP, and beneficiary participants.

I certify that these regulations do not require additional reporting under the criteria of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 602, 632, 653, and 1501-1571, the effects of this regulation on state, local, and tribal governments and the private sector have been assessed. This regulation will not compel the expenditure in any one year of $100 million or more by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. Therefore, a statement under 2 U.S.C. 1532 is not required.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 810(a)(1)(A), the Agency submitted a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States before publication of this rule in the Federal Register . This rule is not a major rule as defined at 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the FRTIB amends 5 CFR Chapter VI as follows:

I. Background

The REAL ID Act of 2005  1 and its implementing Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations  2 authorize REAL ID compliant states to issue temporary or limited-term REAL ID compliant driver's licenses and identification cards to certain nonimmigrant aliens who satisfy other REAL ID eligibility requirements. These temporary driver's licenses or identification cards cannot be issued with a validity period longer than the alien's authorized period of stay in the United States or, if there is no definite end to the period of authorized stay, a period of one year. 3

Discussion

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2005-20-01, Amendment 39-14294 (70 FR 56358, September 27, 2005) (“AD 2005-20-01”). AD 2005-20-01 applied to all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 1, 2019 (84 FR 12143). The NPRM was prompted by reports of cracks found in the left and right side keel beam upper chords when replacing vertical stiffeners. In addition, the FAA has determined that the replacement stiffener installation degraded the fault current bonding path that could introduce an ignition source in the fuel tank in the event of fault current being imparted onto the fuel tank structure. The NPRM proposed to require, depending on airplane configuration, replacing the vertical stiffeners at LBL and RBL 6.15 on the rear spar of the wing center section, installing angle and bonding jumpers, installing brackets, applying sealant, and applying paint. The FAA is issuing this AD to address cracks in vertical stiffeners at LBL and RBL 6.15, which could result in damage to the keel beam structure and consequently reduce the capability of the airplane to sustain flight loads. The FAA is also issuing this AD to address a potential ignition source in the fuel tank due to insufficient bonding, which could lead to a fuel tank explosion and subsequent loss of the airplane.

The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment. The FAA received one comment that was outside the scope of this rulemaking.

Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE does not affect compliance with the proposed actions.

The FAA concurs with the commenter. The FAA has redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD as paragraph (c)(1) of this AD and added paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST01219SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirement of 14 CFR 39.17.

Boeing requested that the “Actions Since AD 2005-20-01 was Issued” section of the NPRM be revised so that the reference to “Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1339 RB” is changed to “Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-57A1339 RB”. The commenter pointed out that the “RB” designation is for a Boeing requirements bulletin and not a Boeing service bulletin. The commenter also noted that this change would be consistent with how this service information is referred to in the “Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information” section of the NPRM.

The FAA agrees with commenter's request for the reason provided by the commenter. Since the “Actions Since AD 2005-20-01 was Issued” section of the preamble does not reappear in this final rule, no change to this final rule is necessary.

Boeing requested that the introductory text of paragraph (k) of the proposed AD, “Credit for Previous Actions,” be revised to clarify that the unsafe condition caused by possible degradation of the fault current bonding path must be corrected in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1269, Revision 2, dated October 11, 2018. The commenter stated that it wanted to emphasize that credit is only provided for stiffeners replaced using the service information specified in paragraphs (k)(1) and (2) of the proposed AD and that doing the procedures in the service information specified in paragraph (k)(1) or (2) of the proposed AD does not resolve the unsafe electrical bonding condition.

The FAA agrees with the commenter's statement that the unsafe electrical bonding condition can only be addressed by doing the actions described in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1269, Revision 2, dated October 11, 2018. However, the FAA disagrees with the commenter's request to revise the proposed credit provision. After further review of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1269, Revision 2, dated October 11, 2018, and clarification from the commenter regarding the request, the FAA has determined that credit for previously accomplished actions is not needed in this AD because the effectivity of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1269, Revision 2, dated October 11, 2018, addresses airplanes on which actions have already been done using the procedures described in earlier revisions of the service information. Therefore the FAA has removed the credit provision from this AD, and has redesignated the subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

Boeing requested that the SUMMARY section of the NPRM be revised to clarify the unsafe condition regarding the electrical fault current bonding path. The commenter specifically requested that the sentence “In addition, we have determined that the replacement stiffener installation degraded the fault current bonding path and could introduce an ignition source in the fuel tank in the event of an electrical hot short or lightning strike,” to “In addition, we have determined that the replacement stiffener installation degraded the fault current bonding path and could introduce an ignition source in the fuel tank in the event of a fault current being imparted onto the fuel tank structure.” The commenter also requested that this change be made to the “Actions Since AD 2005-20-01 was Issued” section of the NPRM.

The commenter explained that an ignition source threat can originate from a fault current that develops from a short circuit internal to auxiliary hydraulic pumps installed on or attached to the aft spar. Furthermore, the commenter noted that electrical hot shorts (normally associated with clamped wire bundles, which are attached to fuel tank walls via cushioned clamps and brackets) and lightning strike ignition threats are not applicable to the installation defined in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1269, Revision 2, dated October 11, 2018.

The FAA agrees with the commenter's request for the reasons provided by the commenter. The FAA has revised the SUMMARY section of this final rule to include the sentence “In addition, the FAA has determined that the replacement stiffener installation degraded the fault current bonding path that could introduce an ignition source in the fuel tank in the event of a fault current being imparted onto the fuel tank structure.” As previously stated, the “Actions Since AD 2005-20-01” section does not reappear in this final rule, so no further change is necessary in that regard.

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

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

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

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

The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1269, Revision 2, dated October 11, 2018. This service information describes procedures for replacing the vertical stiffeners at LBL and RBL 6.15 on the rear spar of the wing center section with new, improved stiffeners, installing angle and bonding jumpers, installing brackets, applying sealant, and applying paint.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 171 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

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

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

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

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

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

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

On May 16, 2019, the FAA issued Emergency AD 2019-10-51, which requires for certain serial-numbered helicopters, inspecting the fuselage frame before further flight and providing certain information to the FAA within 10 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the required inspections. This AD also prohibits installing certain components as part of STC SR00592DE on any helicopter. Emergency AD 2019-10-51 was sent previously to all known U.S. owners and operators of these helicopters. This action was prompted by reports of fatigue cracks in the fuselage frame, through the left-hand door frame webs and frame cap at station 4135. These cracks occurred on certain serial numbered helicopters with STC SR00592DE installed. The cracks initiated under the doubler that reinforces the door frame where recessed medical wall fittings are attached. In one case, the crack under the doubler propagated through the inboard frame cap and onto the inboard web. This condition, if not corrected, could result in excessive vibration, an in-flight breakup, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. Although the exact cause of this unsafe condition is still being investigated, the FAA has determined that the cracks are a result of the recessed medical wall rack installation.

The FAA reviewed Air Methods Alert Service Bulletin ASB19-03, Revision IR, dated May 6, 2019 (ASB). The ASB requires removing the recessed medical wall rack and describes procedures for inspecting the door frame at the forward medical wall rack doubler for cracks. If cracks are discovered, the ASB specifies that the aircraft is grounded until repairs are made. 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 is issuing this AD after evaluating all the relevant information and determining the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of this same type design.

This AD requires the following for certain serial-numbered helicopters:

• Before further flight, removing the recessed medical wall rack, inspecting the fuselage frame box beam structure for cracks and loose rivets, and making repairs if necessary or reinstalling the inboard web of the box beam and the cabin interior panels with the medical wall rack to remain removed and

• Within 10 hours TIS after the required inspections, providing the inspection results, photographs of inspected areas, total helicopter hours TIS since installation of STC SR00592DE, and the helicopter serial number to the FAA.

This AD also prohibits installing on any helicopter recessed medical wall assembly part number (P/N) 778-1400-001, wall mount fittings P/N 900-9959-001, aft medical wall doubler P/N 900-9989, and medical wall long doubler P/N 900-6021 at stations 4135 and 4963.19 as part of STC SR00592DE.

This AD requires the inspections before further flight, whereas the ASB specifies within 10 flight hours. This AD requires a single inspection before further flight, whereas the ASB specifies repetitive inspections every 200 hours TIS following the initial inspection. This AD does not require contacting Air Methods for disposition on the discovery of cracks, whereas the ASB does.

The FAA considers this AD interim action. The inspection reports that are required by this AD will enable the FAA to obtain better insight into the cause of the cracking and eventually to develop final action to address the unsafe condition. Once final action has been identified, the FAA might consider further rulemaking. Also, the FAA is currently considering requiring repetitive inspections of the frame. However, the planned compliance time for those inspections would allow enough time to provide notice and opportunity for prior public comment on the merits of the repetitive inspections.

Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency, for “good cause,” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under this section, an agency, upon finding good cause, may issue a final rule without seeking comment prior to the rulemaking.

An unsafe condition exists that required the immediate adoption of Emergency AD 2019-10-51, issued on May 16, 2019, to all known U.S. owners and operators of these helicopters. The FAA found that the risk to the flying public justified waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because an unsafe condition existed which required corrective actions before further flight. These conditions still exist and the AD is hereby published in the Federal Register as an amendment to section 39.13 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 39.13) to make it effective to all persons. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). In addition, for the reason stated above, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, the FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2019-0643 and Product Identifier 2019-SW-013-AD at the beginning of your comments. The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this final rule. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.

The FAA will post all comments received, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this final rule.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 10 helicopters of U.S. registry and estimates the following costs to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Removing the recessed medical wall rack takes about 0.25 work-hour, inspecting for cracks and loose rivets takes about 8 work-hours, and reporting the required information takes about 1 work-hour for an estimated cost of $786 per helicopter and $7,860 for the affected U.S. fleet. Thirty-three blind rivets at about $1.50 each are required to reinstall the inboard web if there are no cracks for a total cost of $50. Loose fitting/doubler rivets cost about $1.50 each. The FAA has no way of estimating the cost to repair any cracked structure.

A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.

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

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

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

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

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

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

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

Discussion

The FAA has received a report indicating possible misalignment of the horizontal stabilizer pivot pin lock ring, outer pivot pin, and outboard spacer at final assembly. One operator reported a left side pivot pin assembly that did not have a visible gap between the outboard nut and trap fitting. The pivot pin outboard spacer was not set correctly flush against the horizontal stabilizer pivot bearing and outboard washer due to a misaligned pivot pin lock ring. It was determined that only certain airplanes were possibly delivered with this condition. This condition, if not addressed, could result in decreased lateral load capacity, the loss of pivot pin retention parts, and consequent loss of the horizontal stabilizer and loss of control of the airplane.

The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB550009-00 RB, Issue 001, dated April 2, 2019. This service information describes procedures for a one-time detailed inspection of the horizontal stabilizer pivot pin assemblies for misalignment and incorrect gapping, and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions include replacing any incorrectly installed horizontal stabilizer pivot pin assembly. 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 is issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

This AD requires accomplishment of the actions identified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB550009-00 RB, Issue 001, dated April 2, 2019, described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.

For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-0608.

There are currently no domestic operators of this product. Therefore, the FAA finds that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, the FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2019-0608 and Product Identifier 2019-NM-084-AD at the beginning of your comments. The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this final rule. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.

The FAA will post all comments received, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this final rule.

Currently, there are no affected U.S.-registered airplanes. If an affected airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, the FAA provides the following cost estimates to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 14, 2019 (84 FR 21268). The NPRM was prompted by reports of cracked elevator PCU brackets on the horizontal stabilizer rear spar and cracking on the elevator front spar. The NPRM proposed to require one-time inspections for cracks and damage of the elevator PCU brackets and surrounding area, horizontal stabilizer rear spar, and elevator front spar, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address failure of an elevator PCU bracket or fracture of the front spar into two segments; either structural failure may cause a jam in one elevator or a loss of airplane pitch control if both elevators are affected.

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2018-34, dated December 17, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-0322.

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

Horizon Air requested that the FAA change the language in the introductory text of paragraph (g) of the proposed AD from mandating “the Accomplishment Instructions” in the service information to mandating only the section that corrects the unsafe condition. Horizon Air stated that the Accomplishment Instructions, Part A, “Job Set-up,” and Part C, “Close Out,” do not directly correct the unsafe condition. Horizon Air stated that incorporating these two sections as a requirement in the AD restricts an operator's ability to accomplish other maintenance in conjunction with the required actions to correct the unsafe condition.

The FAA agrees with the commenter's request to exclude the “Job Set-up” and “Close Out” sections of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-55-09, dated June 7, 2018. The FAA has revised the introductory text of paragraph (g) of this AD to require accomplishment of Section 3.B, Part A, of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-55-09, dated June 7, 2018, and the FAA has revised paragraph (g)(1) of this AD to require accomplishment of Section 3.B, Part B, of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-55-09, dated June 7, 2018.

Horizon Air requested that the FAA update the contact information for reporting in the introductory text of paragraph (h) of the proposed AD. Horizon Air pointed out that De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Ltd is now the design approval holder (DAH) for the Q400 aircraft.

The FAA agrees with the commenter's request. The FAA has updated the address information accordingly in this final rule.

As a note, there is a difference between the commercial designation and the model designation on the U.S. type certificate data sheet (TCDS). “Q400” is the commercial designation, while Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400 is the designation on the TCDS. The FAA uses the model designation on the TCDS to define the applicability in ADs and, as a result, have not changed the applicability of this AD. The FAA is in the process of changing the TCDS to reflect the name change for these models. The FAA will use the name identified in the current TCDS so as not to delay issuance of the final rule. Once the TCDS has been changed, the FAA will use the new name in subsequent ADs.

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

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

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

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

Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 84-55-09, dated June 7, 2018. This service information describes procedures for one-time detailed visual and fluorescent penetrant inspections for cracks and damage of the elevator PCU brackets (including the surrounding area), horizontal stabilizer rear spar, and elevator front spar, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. The related investigative action is an eddy current inspection for cracking of certain mating holes of the horizontal stabilizer rear spar. Corrective actions include replacement of the elevator PCU brackets and repair of the horizontal stabilizer rear spar and elevator front spar.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 54 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the reporting requirement in this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, the FAA estimates the cost of reporting the inspection results on U.S. operators to be $4,590, or $85 per product.

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

A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

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

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

This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

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

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

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

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

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

History

The FAA published a final rule in the Federal Register (84 FR 35290, July 23, 2019) for Doc. No. FAA-2019-0347, establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface at Tri-Cities Airport, Endicott, NY. Subsequent to publication, the FAA found that the dash was omitted from Tri-Cities Airport in the body of the legal description. This action corrects the error.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11C dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

1. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) amends its regulations concerning the process for submitting hardcopy filings and submissions  1 to the Commission. 2 Specifically, this final rule revises 18 CFR 385.2001(a) to require that deliveries of filings and submissions other than by the United States Postal Service (USPS) are to be sent to an off-site facility for security screening and processing. 3 The regulations still permit USPS mail to be sent directly to the Commission's headquarters.

2. The Government Accounting Office (GAO) has issued a report indicating that, since the fall of 2001, the rate of incidents involving threats via the mail has increased “due in part to hoaxes and concerns about leakages from mail that had previously been routinely handled.”  4 More recently, in October 2018, package bombs sent to politicians and newsrooms prompted many organizations to assess mail screening and security procedures to reduce vulnerabilities. 5 The GAO report concluded that “[m]ail continues to be a potential venue” for threats and that “[p]reparation involves having the procedures, plans, and training in place.”  6 Further, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recommends that deliveries submitted to agencies should be “received, screened, sorted, and prepared for delivery” at an offsite facility. 7

3. The Commission has reviewed its protocols on hardcopy/hand-delivered submissions to the agency. The Commission's regulations currently provide that filers should send hard-copy submissions directly to the Commission's principal office, which is located at 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. 8 Upon review, the Commission has determined that sending hard-copy/hand-delivered submissions to an off-site facility for security screening and processing, prior to being delivered to the Commission's principal office, would better protect the safety of the Commission, its employees, and the public.

4. The purpose of this final rule is to protect the general public and Commission employees from potential security risks related to hardcopy/hand-delivered submissions. Revising the Commission's procedures to have hardcopy/hand-delivered submissions delivered to an off-site facility for security screening, before delivery to the Commission, acknowledges the findings in the GAO Report and comports with the recommendation from DHS. 9

5. Accordingly, this final rule amends the Commission's regulations to provide that members of the public are required to send hardcopy submissions, other than those sent through USPS, to an off-site facility at 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852. Hand-deliveries can be provided to the off-site facility in-person (by the filing entity or its designee) during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. 10 The off-site facility will sort, screen, and prepare the filings and submissions for delivery to the Commission. Filings and submissions sent though USPS can continue to be mailed to the Commission's principal office in Washington, DC because USPS has existing “security, screening, and control processes” that comply with DHS best practices. 11

6. The revisions adopted here will not affect the public's ability to make timely filings. As an initial matter, this final rule does not change the process for submitting electronic filings with the Commission. Unless a hardcopy filing or submission is required, the public is strongly encouraged to submit filings and submissions electronically, through the Commission's eFiling application, at https://www.ferc.gov/. 12 For deliveries and documents sent through means other than USPS, those filings and submissions will be considered “received” by the off-site facility. The off-site facility will log all deliveries when received and will provide the Commission with the log so that the documents may be stamped appropriately and recorded by the Commission as received on that date, consistent with the date and time on the log.

7. The Commission's principal office for business and its headquarters address will remain 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. 13 After this rule becomes effective, however, Commission staff at headquarters will no longer accept deliveries and hardcopy filings sent through carriers other than USPS. As noted above, for security reasons, deliveries to the Commission's headquarters other than by USPS will be rejected. Such filings and submissions would not be considered received until re-submitted in accordance with the revisions adopted herein.

8. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approves certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rule. 14 However, this final rule does not contain any additional information collection requirements. Therefore, compliance with OMB's regulations is not required.

9. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment. 15

10. Part 380 of the Commission's regulations lists exemptions to the requirement to draft an Environmental Analysis or Environmental Impact Statement. Included is an exemption for procedural, ministerial, or internal administrative actions. 16 Accordingly, this rulemaking is exempt from the requirement to draft such documents under that provision.

11. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)  17 generally requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule concerns a modification of current Commission regulations and practices. The Commission certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact upon participants in Commission proceedings. An analysis under the RFA is therefore not required.

12. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register , the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the internet through the Commission's Home Page ( http://www.ferc.gov ) and in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.

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

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

15. The Commission is issuing this rule as a final rule without a period for public comment. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A), notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures are unnecessary for “rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice.” This rule is therefore exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures, because it concerns the Commission's mail procedures and practices. In particular, the rule is directed at improving the safety of the Commission, its employees, and the public, not toward a determination of the rights or interests of affected parties. The rule will not significantly affect regulated entities or the general public.

16. This rule is effective November 4, 2019.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends part 385, chapter I, title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

Background

The final regulations (TD 9839) that are the subject of this correction are under section 1101 of the Internal Revenue Code.

As published August 9, 2018 (83 FR 39331), the final regulation and removal of temporary regulations (TD 9839; FR Doc. 2018-17002) contained errors that may prove misleading and therefore need to be corrected.

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 301 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:

Electronic Availability

This document and additional information concerning OFAC are available on OFAC's website ( www.treasury.gov/ofac ).

On November 27, 2018, the President, invoking the authority of, inter alia, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706) (IEEPA), issued Executive Order 13851 (83 FR 61505, November 29, 2018) (E.O. 13851).

In E.O. 13851, the President determined that the situation in Nicaragua, including the violent response by the Government of Nicaragua to the protests that began on April 18, 2018, and the Ortega regime's systematic dismantling and undermining of democratic institutions and the rule of law, its use of indiscriminate violence and repressive tactics against civilians, and its corruption leading to the destabilization of Nicaragua's economy, constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and declared a national emergency to deal with that threat.

OFAC is issuing the Nicaragua Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 582 (the “Regulations”), to implement E.O. 13851, pursuant to authorities delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury in E.O. 13851. A copy of E.O. 13851 appears in appendix A to this part.

The Regulations are being published in abbreviated form at this time for the purpose of providing immediate guidance to the public. OFAC intends to supplement this part 582 with a more comprehensive set of regulations, which may include additional interpretive and definitional guidance, general licenses, and statements of licensing policy. The appendix to the Regulations will be removed when OFAC supplements this part with a more comprehensive set of regulations.

Because the Regulations involve a foreign affairs function, the provisions of Executive Order 12866 and the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date, as well as the provisions of Executive Order 13771, are inapplicable. Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) does not apply.

The collections of information related to the Regulations are contained in 31 CFR part 501 (the “Reporting, Procedures and Penalties Regulations”). Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), those collections of information have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1505-0164. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number.

On September 7, 2018, VA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (83 FR 45384) which announced VA's intent to amend regulations for VAAR Case RIN 2900-AQ20—VA Acquisition Regulation: Contracting by Negotiation; Service Contracting. VA provided a 60-day comment period for the public to respond to the proposed rule and submit comments. The comment period for the proposed rule ended on November 6, 2018 and VA received three comments from one commenter. This rule adopts as a final rule, with changes, the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on September 7, 2018, with minor formatting and/or grammatical edits, as well as the non-substantive changes described below. VA reviewed and considered the comments raised by the one commenter in the development of this final rule. A discussion of the issues raised in the comments as well as the changes made to the rule as a result of those comments, and the technical non-substantive changes to the final rule are provided as follows:

In particular, this final rule revises the table at 801.106 to reflect the addition of new VAAR clause 852.237-73, Crime Control Act—Requirement for Background Checks and the corresponding new OMB control number 2900-0863. This final rule also removes 815.303, Responsibilities, and 815.304, Evaluation factors and significant subfactors, and moves them to the VAAM as they contain procedural guidance that is internal to the VA.

This rule adds a new section, 815.370, Only one offer. The inclusion of this policy gives the contracting officer the ability to re-solicit for an action if they only receive one offer and if the solicitation gave offerors less than 30 days to submit a proposal. This final rule removes subpart 815.4, Contract Pricing, as it contains procedural guidance that is internal to the VA and the content has been moved to the VAAM.

This final rule removes subpart 815.6, Unsolicited Proposals, as it contains procedural guidance. This rulemaking adds subpart 816.5 and section 816.506-70, Requirements—supplement for mortuary services, which prescribes clause 852.216-76, Requirements—Supplement for Mortuary Services, for all contracts for mortuary services.

Under part 837, this final rule removes section 837.103, Contracting officer responsibility, as this internal procedural guidance is more suitable for the VAAM. This rule also removes the title and text at section 837.110, Solicitation provisions and contract clauses, since FAR 52.237-2, Protection of Government Buildings, Equipment and Vegetation, and 852.228-71, Indemnification and Insurance, outline contractor liabilities and required insurance levels and provides sufficient coverage in this area.

This final rule amends section 837.110-70, Services provided to eligible beneficiaries, by retitling it “VA solicitation provisions and contract clauses,” by removing the prescription for the clause, 852.271-70, Non-Discrimination in Services Provided to Beneficiaries, and by adding the prescriptions for the new clauses 852.237-74, Non-Discrimination in Service Delivery, and 852.237-75, Key Personnel. This final rule removes subpart 837.2, Advisory and Assistance Services, since it duplicates coverage in FAR.

This rule amends section 837.403, Contract clause, to redesignate it as section 837.403-70, VA contract clauses, and adds prescriptions for three new clauses that address protection of children under contracts providing child care services as required by FAR 37.103(d): 852.237-71, Nonsmoking Policy for Children Services; 852.237-72, Crime Control Act—Reporting of Child Abuse; and 852.237-73, Crime Control Act—Requirement for Background Checks.

Under subpart 837.70, Mortuary Services, this rule adds section 837.7000, Scope, which cites the statutory basis for the mortuary service benefits covered. This final rule also removes sections 837.7002, List of qualified funeral directors; 837.7003, Funeral authorization; 837.7004, Administrative necessity; and 837.7005, Unclaimed remains—all other cases, because this material was based on internal VA guidance that has been rescinded.

This final rule adds subpart 849.5, Contract Termination Clauses, section 849.504, Termination of fixed-price contracts for default (no text), and section 849.504-70, Termination of mortuary services, to prescribe a new clause 852.249-70, Termination for Default—Supplement for Mortuary Services. Under subpart 852.2, this regulatory action amends clause 852.215-70, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned and Veteran-Owned Small Business Evaluation Factors to add language to comply with the statute requiring any business concern determined by VA to have willfully and intentionally misrepresented a company's SDVOSB/VOSB status to be subject to debarment for a period of not less than five years.

This final rule amends 852.215-71, Evaluation Factor Commitments, by adding language requiring that any business concern determined by VA to have willfully and intentionally misrepresented a company's SDVOSB/VOSB status be subject to debarment for a period of not less than five years.

This final rule adds clause 852.215-72, Notice of Intent to Re-Solicit, which informs offerors that in the event that only one offer is received in response to a solicitation that allows offerors fewer than 30 days to submit their proposal, the Contracting Officer may cancel the solicitation and re-solicit for an additional period of at least 30 days in accordance with 815.370-2.

This rulemaking adds clause 852.216-76, Requirements—Supplement for Mortuary Services, for all requirements contracts for mortuary services. Under part 871, this rule revises section 871.212, to redesignate the first paragraph as (a); to remove the prescription of clause 852.271-70, Non-Discrimination in Services Provided to Beneficiaries; to renumber the remaining paragraphs as (1) through (4); and to add new paragraph (b) to refer the contracting officer to section 837.110-70(a) for the prescription of the new clause 852.237-74, Non-Discrimination in Service Delivery.

VA provided a 60-day comment period for the public to respond to the proposed rule. The comment period for the proposed rule ended on November 6, 2018 and VA received comments from one commenter. The issues raised in the comments as well as the changes made to the proposed rule on the basis of those comments are provided as follows:

The commenter believes VAAR 815.370-4(b) could be misread to suggest that, even when the exception applies, the contracting officer must still consider maximizing competition when only one offer has been received—which in many cases would mean considering whether to re-solicit the requirement. The commenter commends VA for its thoughtful development of this rule and of the agency's overarching goal of revising and streamlining the VAAR, stating that SDVOSBs and VOSBs, as well as VA contracting officers, will benefit from the clarity this rulemaking provides.

VA concurs with the commenter in that a set-aside or any of the other exemptions should not be subject to additional competition if the contracting officer determines the price is fair and reasonable. Therefore, we will retain the paragraph, but will modify the statement related to additional competition in the first part of the sentence. Paragraph (b) will read:

“(b) The applicability of an exception in paragraph (a) of this section does not eliminate the need for the contracting officer to ensure adequate time for competition is allotted or that the price is fair and reasonable.”

The commenter believes that the SDVOSB/VOSB evaluation preference at 15.304 should be applied in all instances a set-aside is not performed, even on a lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) contract action. The commenter also recommends that when applying the full and partial credit for SDVOSBs and VOSBs under subsection (b) in a procurement where price is the only factor or that uses a lowest price technically acceptable source selection process as described in FAR 15.101-2, the contracting officer must deem the price offered by a verified SDVOSB to be 10% lower than its proposed price for evaluation purposes, and the price offered by a verified VOSB to be 5% lower than its proposed price for evaluation purposes.

VA appreciates the comment. However, the commenter recommends VA apply a price evaluation preference. VA does not possess statutory authority for a price evaluation preference. Therefore, no changes to the proposed rule will be made.

Beyond the contracting priority to be used when setting a contract or order aside, the commenter further believes that VA also must give an evaluation preference to SDVOSBs and VOSBs, with greater evaluation preference for SDVOSBs, then VOSBs, then all other small businesses consistent with Veterans First. In this regard, the commenter is recommending that VA should revise the proposed language at VAAR 815.304-71(a), which currently says that contracting officers shall insert VAAR 852.215-70, SDVOSB and VOSB Evaluation Factors, “in competitively negotiated solicitations that are not set aside for SDVOSBs or VOSBs.” 83 FR at 45379. The commenter recommends that this should be revised to exclude only SDVOSB set-asides.

VA appreciates the comment. It is VA policy that SDVOSBs have priority over VOSBs when contracting under the authority of 38 U.S.C. 8127(i). However, the intent of the evaluation preference is to provide additional preference to veteran-owned small businesses when a procurement is performed outside of the authority under 38 U.S.C. 8127. This is in recognition of the requirement in 38 U.S.C. 8128(a) that small business concerns “owned and controlled by veterans” have a priority over other small businesses. 38 U.S.C. 8128(a) does not make a distinction between SDVOSB or VOSB. Therefore, the proposed language will remain unchanged.

In addition, this final rule also includes two technical non-substantive changes to the proposed rule at section 815.370-4(a)(2) and (a)(3) which will be finalized in this final rule as described below. It updates language to comport with the FAR that was issued as FAR Class Deviations and does not significantly change the intent or meaning of the originally proposed language.

Under section 815.370-4, Exceptions, in this final rule, two technical corrections are made to the proposed rule language—

1. At paragraph (a)(2), the exception is corrected to remove “humanitarian or peacekeeping” and to add the word “cyber” as one of the exceptions permitted for acquisitions to facilitate defense against or recovery from, and to add the phrase at the end of the sentence, “or to support response to an emergency or major disaster.” “Humanitarian or peacekeeping” is removed as VA supports emergencies or major disasters and recovery therefrom. This update comports with two FAR Class Deviations that adds new definitions for “Emergency,” and “Major Disaster,” as well as adds “cyber” to the list of actions to facilitate defense against or recovery from when referring to the updated “micro-purchase threshold” and “simplified acquisition threshold” amounts authorized by an existing FAR Class Deviation and for which a FAR case is in progress. Therefore, 815.370-4, Exceptions, paragraph (a)(2) would now read: “(2) Acquisitions in support of emergency operations, or to facilitate defense against or recovery from cyber, nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack; or to support response to an emergency or major disaster;”.

2. Under paragraph (a)(3), the reference to “VAAR 19” is updated to reflect a more accurate citation of “VAAR subpart 819.70.”

Under section 837.7001, Solicitations provisions and contract clauses, one technical change is made to the proposed rule language—

Under paragraph (b), the text is revised to remove a reference to ALT VI for the clause FAR 52.216-21, Requirements. Paragraph (b) now reads as follows: “The contracting officer shall insert in addition to FAR 52.216-21, Requirements, the following VA clauses in all mortuary service solicitations and contracts:” The rest of paragraph (b) and section 837.7001 remain unchanged as a result of this rulemaking.

Title 48, Federal Acquisition Regulations System, Chapter 8, Department of Veterans Affairs, of the Code of Federal Regulations, as proposed to be revised by this rulemaking, would represent VA's implementation of its legal authority and publication of the Department of Veterans Affairs Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) for the cited applicable parts. Other than future amendments to this rule or governing statutes for the cited applicable parts, or as otherwise authorized by approved deviations or waivers in accordance with FAR subpart 1.4, Deviations from the FAR, and as implemented by VAAR subpart 801.4, Deviations from the FAR or VAAR, no contrary guidance or procedures would be authorized. All existing or subsequent VA guidance would be read to conform with the rulemaking if possible or, if not possible, such guidance would be superseded by this rulemaking as pertains to the cited applicable VAAR parts.

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review defines “significant regulatory action” to mean any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: “(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal Governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, 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 set forth in this Executive Order.”

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at http://www.regulations.gov, usually within 48 hours after the rulemaking document is published. Additionally, a copy of the rulemaking and its impact analysis are available on VA's website at http://www.va.gov/orpm by following the link for VA Regulations Published from FY 2004 Through Fiscal Year to Date. This final rule is not an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (at 44 U.S.C. 3507) requires that VA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a), an agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. See also 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3)(vi). This final rule amends one information collection requirement and imposes one new information collection requirement. Accordingly, under 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), VA has submitted a copy of this rulemaking action to OMB for its review.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), a current collection of information, OMB No. 2900-0590, that will now be contained in part 837 at section 837.403-70 and in part 852 at section 852.237-70, was revised as set forth in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION portion of this final rule. The clause number that appears in the table at 801.106 is also revised accordingly.

Summary of collection of information:

This final rule contains provisions constituting an existing information collection at 48 CFR 837.403 and 852.237-7, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) and has been assigned OMB control number 2900-0590. This final rule revises 837.403 to renumber it as 837.403-70, to retitle it as “VA contract clauses,” and to renumber the clause as 852.237-70 while retaining the title, “Indemnification and Medical Liability Insurance.”

Clause 852.237-70 is used in lieu of FAR clause 52.237-7, Indemnification and Medical Liability Insurance, in solicitations and contracts for the acquisition of non-personal health care services. It requires the apparent successful bidder/offeror, upon the request of the contracting officer, prior to contract award, to furnish evidence of insurability of the offeror and/or all health-care providers who will perform under the contract. In addition, the clause requires the contractor, prior to commencement of services under the contract, to provide Certificates of Insurance or insurance policies evidencing that the firm possesses the types and amounts of insurance required by the solicitation. This final rule modifies the collection to require the contractor to notify the contracting officer within five days of becoming aware of a change in insurance providers during the performance period of this contract for all health-care providers performing under this contract, and to provide to the contracting officer evidence of such insurance for any subcontractor at least five days before commencement of work by that subcontractor.

Description of need for information and proposed use of information:

The information is required in order to protect VA by ensuring that the firm to which award may be made and the individuals who may provide health care services under the contract are insurable and that, following award, the contractor and its employees will continue to possess the types and amounts of insurance required by the solicitation. It helps ensure that VA will not be held liable for any negligent acts of the contractor or its employees and ensures that VA and VA beneficiaries will be protected by adequate insurance coverage. The clause number is changed to 852.237-70 to conform to the FAR guidance for numbering of clauses. The burden imposed by this collection remains unchanged as follows:

Estimated number of respondents annually: 1,500.

Estimated frequency of responses: One response for each contract to be awarded.

Estimated average burden per collection: 30 minutes.

Estimate of the total annual hour burden of the collection of information: 750 hours.

Annual cost to all respondents: $15,000 (at $20 per hour, based on our belief that the majority of the labor effort would be clerical similar to GS-5).

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), a new collection of information is prescribed, under OMB No. 2900-0863, that is contained in Part 837 at section 837.403-70 (d) and Part 852 at clause 852.237-73, as set forth in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION portion of this final rule. The clause number and the OMB clearance number are added to the table at 801.106.

Summary of collection of information:

Under the Crime Control Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13041), each agency of the Federal Government, and every facility operated by the Federal Government, or operated under contract with the Federal Government, that hires, or contracts for hire, individuals involved with the provision of child care services to children under the age of 18 shall assure that all existing and newly-hired employees undergo a criminal history background check.

New VAAR clause 852.237-73, Crime Control Act—Requirement for Background Checks, is required in all solicitations, contracts, and orders that involve providing child care services to children under the age of 18, including social services, health and mental health care, child-(day) care, education (whether or not directly involved in teaching), and rehabilitative programs covered under the statute.

Description of need for information and use of information:

The contract clause requires the contractor to perform the background checks on behalf of VA to assure the safety of children under the age of 18 that are recipients of services under a VA program. It is intended to assure their safety by avoiding hiring individuals with a history of criminal acts and especially acts of child abuse. The following estimated annual burden has been revised and reduced from that in the proposed rule based on contract data from the last three fiscal years which reflect a pool of awarded contracts which include child care services to arrive at a revised estimated annual burden amount. In the proposed rule, the estimated number of respondents annually were based on health service contracts awarded, whereas in this final rule, the estimated number of respondents was calculated based on contracts awarded under NAICS codes associated with child care services. An average of 10 responses per contract is a reasonable estimate for an awarded child care services contract.

Estimated number of respondents annually: 150.

Estimated frequency of responses: 10 per contract awarded.

Estimated average burden per collection: 1 hour.

Estimate of the total annual hour burden of the collection of information: 1,500 hours.

Annual cost to all respondents: $74,550 ($49.70 rate including fringe benefits and assuming Bureau of Labor Statistics wage code 11-3011, Administrative Services Managers.)

This clause enables the VA to be in compliance with the Crime Control Act of 1990 and to protect children that are within its health care systems.

Notice regarding this information collection requirement was posted to the Federal Register via the preamble of Proposed Rule RIN 2900-AQ20 on September 7, 2018 (83 FR 45374) with comment period closing date of November 6, 2018. VA didn't receive any public comments related to this information collection. As a result, OMB issued a tentative control number 2900-0863 to this new information collection to be used for final rule publication. After the publication of this final rule, VA will resubmit this information collection (2900-0863) to OMB for its final approval.

This final rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. The overall impact of the rule is of benefit to small businesses owned by Veterans or service-disabled Veterans as the VAAR is being updated to remove extraneous procedural information that applies only to VA's internal operating processes or procedures. VA estimates no cost impact to individual business will result from these rule updates. On this basis, the final rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this regulatory action is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.

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

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule as not a major rule, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Robert L. Wilkie, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on July 25, 2019, for publication.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, VA revises 48 CFR parts 801, 815, 816, 837, 849, 852 and 871 as follows:

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. Regulations governing sideboard protections for GOA groundfish fisheries appear at subpart B of 50 CFR part 680.

The annual allowance of the 2019 Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) apportioned to trawl catcher vessels in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA not participating in the cooperative fishery of the Rockfish Program is 2,148 metric tons (mt), as established by the final 2019 and 2020 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (84 FR 9416, March 14, 2019).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) has determined that the annual allowance of the 2019 Pacific cod TAC apportioned to trawl catcher vessels in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA is necessary to account for the incidental catch in other anticipated fisheries. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 0 mt and is setting aside the remaining 2,148 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels using trawl gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. While this closure is effective the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip. This closure does not apply to fishing by vessels participating in the cooperative fishery of the Rockfish Program for the Central GOA.

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the directed fishing closure of Pacific cod by catcher vessels using trawl gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of August 28, 2019.

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

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

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. Regulations governing sideboard protections for GOA groundfish fisheries appear at subpart B of 50 CFR part 680.

The 2019 Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) apportioned to catcher vessels using hook-and-line gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA is 73 metric tons (mt), as established by the final 2019 and 2020 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (84 FR 9416, March 14, 2019).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) has determined that the 2019 Pacific cod TAC apportioned to catcher vessels using hook-and-line gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 20 mt and is setting aside the remaining 53 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels using hook-and-line gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA. While this closure is effective the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the directed fishing closure of Pacific cod by catcher vessels using hook-and-line gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of August 28, 2019.

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

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