Executive Order 12866

This final rule has been determined to be non-significant for purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and therefore has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

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).

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. The Agency has determined that this rule meets the applicable standards provided in section 3 of the Executive order. In addition, all state and local laws and regulations that conflict with this rule will be preempted. No retroactive effect will be given to this rule.

These loans are subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372 that requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. The Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS) conducts intergovernmental consultation for each RBIC loan in accordance with 2 CFR part 415, subpart C.

In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) the undersigned has determined and certified by signature of this document that this rule, while affecting small entities, will not have an adverse economic impact on small entities. This rule does not impose any significant new requirements on program recipients, nor does it adversely impact proposed real estate transactions involving program recipients as the buyers.

This document has been reviewed in accordance with 7 CFR part 1970, subpart A, “Environmental Policies.” It is the determination of the Agency that this action does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, and, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law 91-190, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is required.

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number for the program impacted by this action is 10.860, Rural Business Investment Program. The Catalog is available on the internet at https://beta.sam.gov. The Government Publishing Office (GPO) prints and sells the CFDA to interested buyers. For information about purchasing the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance from GPO, call the Superintendent of Documents at 202-512-1800 or toll free at 866-512-1800, or access GPO's online bookstore at http://bookstore.gpo.gov.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 1995 (UMRA) of Public Law 104-4 establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, Rural Development generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. When such a statement is needed for a rule, section 205 of UMRA generally requires Rural Development to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, more cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.

This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

Rural Development is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to provide increased opportunities for citizens to access Government information and services electronically to the maximum extent possible.

The policies contained in this rule do not have any substantial direct effect on states, on the relationship between the National Government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor does this final rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments. Therefore, consultation with states is not required.

This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Rural Development has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have tribal implications that require tribal consultation under E.O. 13175. If a tribe would like to engage in consultation with Rural Development on this rule, please contact Rural Development's Native American Coordinator at (720) 544-2911 or AIAN@usda.gov.

Rural Development has reviewed this rule in accordance with USDA Regulation 4300-4, “Civil Rights Impact Analysis,” to identify any major civil rights impacts the rule might have on program participants on the basis of age, race, color, national origin, sex or disability. Based on the review and analysis of the rule and available data, it has been determined that the program purpose, application submission and eligibility criteria, issuance of this final rule will neither adversely nor disproportionately impact low and moderate-income populations, minority populations, women, Indian tribes or persons with disability, by virtue of their race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, or marital or familial status.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), the information collection activities associated with this rule are covered under OMB Number: 0570-0051. This final rule contains no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements that would require approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

The Rural Business Investment Program (RBIP) promotes economic development and the creation of wealth and job opportunities among individuals living in rural areas and to help meet the equity capital investment needs primarily of smaller enterprises located in such areas. Under the RBIP, for-profit Rural Business Investment Companies (RBICs) make venture capital investments in rural areas with the objectives of fostering economic development in such areas and returning maximum profits to the RBIC's investors. The regulations set forth the criteria RBS uses to select and license RBICs, guarantee its debentures, and to make grants to RBICs.

The Food, Conservation, and Energy Program of 2008 (the 2008 Farm Bill) was enacted and affected several provisions of the RBIP regulation. Section 6027 of the 2008 Farm Bill resulted in the need for several regulatory modifications. The agency published an interim rule on December 23, 2011 at 76 FR 80217, with an effective date of January 23, 2012.

In addition, the Agency amended the program to allow RBICs to participate without financial leverage from the Agency. In response to the Interim rule, the agency received three comments from stakeholders. On December 21, 2018, the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (the 2018 Farm Bill) was enacted and contained several statutory amendments affecting the RBIP. Section 6426 of the 2018 Farm Bill resulted in necessary amendments to 7 CFR part 4290, subpart F.

Lastly, the Agency is taking this opportunity to clarify several of the provisions of the regulation.

Rural Business Concern: The current rule defines a Rural Business Concern as an “enterprise whose Principal Office is located in a Rural Area.” By requiring the Rural Business Concern's principal office to be located in a rural area, the Agency has determined that this restriction is hampering the full implementation of the program. The statute authorizing the program defines a rural business concern, in part, as one that “primarily operates in a rural area.” By focusing on the location of the principal office, the Agency is unnecessarily limiting the effectiveness of the program. In addition, per the authorizing statute, the key aspect, as noted above, is that the rural business concern “primarily operates in a rural area. The current definition misses this key feature. For these reasons, the Agency is revising the definition of “rural business concern” to align with the statutory definition.

Rural Business Concern Investment: The current rule defines a Rural Business Concern Investment as being “located in a Rural Area at the time of the initial Financing.” If the initial investment is made in a concern located in an area not considered Rural with the stipulation that the Concern will relocate to a Rural Area after initial financing, the current rules require the RBIC to carry the investment as a non-rural Investment. By requiring the RBIC to carry an investment as a non-rural Investment when the concern has relocated to Rural Area puts an undue burden on the RBIC. The intent of the program is to bring businesses and job opportunities to Rural Areas. So, if the investment was implemented to help facilitate the relocation of the business to a Rural Area, the RBIC should be able to reclassify the initial investment as a “Rural Business Concern Investment.”

• In addition, the definitions are being revised to be consistent with the 2018 Farm Bill and to remove various other definitions that are no longer needed. These include: Revising Urban Area Investment, Developmental Venture Capital, Rural Business Concern, and Rural Business Concern Investment; adding Agency; and deleting Principal Office, Secretary, Small Business Concern, Small Business Concern Investment.

The current regulation requires an RBIC to raise the amount of funds it has identified in its application by the end of the second year from when it receives its “green light” letter. However, the current regulation does not adequately address situations in which the RBIC may raise and close on capital in increments before the end of second year. Such multiple closing is not uncommon when for competing private equity funds. To better align the program with the realities of raising private equity funds, the Agency is adding a new paragraph to this section (see § 4290.210(d)) that specifically allows for multiple closings.

In order to implement language from the 2018 Farm Bill, the Agency is removing the $500 cap on guarantee fees the Secretary may charge and revising the paragraph. Any fee charged will be published in the Federal Register and published on the Rural Development website.

The Agency is revising the requirements found in this section in three ways, as described below.

1. The current regulation identifies minimum levels of financing that must be received by rural business concerns, smaller enterprises, and small business concerns and a maximum level of financing that can go to urban area investments. The authorizing statute contains requirements for the minimum percentage of financings that must be received by rural business concerns and that maximum percentage that can be received in urban areas; it does not specifically identify similar requirements for either smaller enterprises or small business concern investments.

The Agency is keeping the financial requirements for smaller enterprise investments because of the emphasis in the statue. The Agency is, however, dropping the financing percentage requirements for small business concern investments ( i.e., removing § 4290.700(c) from the regulation). This simplifies the implementation of the program and helps reduce potential overlap with programs administered by the Small Business Administration.

2. The current regulation requires the percentage requirements to be met on both the percentage of the number of concerns receiving Financing within the RBIC's portfolio and the percentage of dollars the RBIC provides to the concerns in its portfolio. Requiring both percentages to be met unnecessarily complicates the program. Therefore, the Agency is revising the percentage requirements to be applied to the amount of dollars the RBIC spends on concerns in the three remaining areas ( i.e., rural business concerns, smaller businesses, and urban areas).

3. The current regulation requires RBICs to comply with the Financing percentages starting the first year after issuance of the certificate. This is unnecessarily restrictive and does not allow an RBIC sufficient time to implement the program. Therefore, the Agency is revising the regulation to require that the Financing percentages be met by the third year after the RBIC receives its certificate, and each subsequent year thereafter.

• Removing reference to Small Business Concern/Small Business Concern Investment in §§ 4290.370(h), 4290.610(b), and 4290.760(a). The authorizing statute for RBIC does not require Small Business Concerns and the agency is removing this reference to allow for more flexibility for RBICs.

In general, the current regulation prohibits Financings to an enterprise if the funds will be used substantially for a foreign operation or more than 49 percent of the employees or tangible assets of the enterprise are located outside the United States. The current regulation has one exception—allowing a financing used to acquire foreign materials and equipment or foreign property rights for use or sale in the United States.

The Agency has determined that the restriction on financing of foreign investments is unnecessarily restrictive—it is prohibiting investments in rural America that will provide more opportunities for job creation and general economic stimulus. Therefore, the Agency is adding a second exception that will allow the financing of a subsidiary of foreign owned entities when that subsidiary is based in the United States with a minimum of 51 percent U.S. ownership (see § 4290.720(g)(2)(ii)).

This rule will increase the limitation on rural business investment companies controlled by Farm Credit System institutions from 25% to 50% before the rural investment company is prohibited from providing equity investments to companies that are not otherwise eligible to receive financing from the Farm Credit System.

The current regulation requires an RBIC to obtain Agency approval whenever there has been a change in ownership. This provision is an unnecessary burden to RBICs because every financing involving equity capital triggers a change in ownership. Furthermore, the appropriate change should be in the change of control (not ownership) in the rural business concern. Change of control occurs when more than 50 percent of the concern exchanges hands. The Agency, therefore, is revising this provision to require Agency approval when there is change of more than 50 percent of control.

The current RBIP rule refers throughout to the “Secretary” (that is, the Secretary of Agriculture) in a number of contexts. A substantial number of these references involve an action by the Secretary, such as approvals, delegations, and determinations. The Administrator, Rural Business-Cooperative Service is delegated authority through 7 CFR 2.48(a)(2)(xiii) to administer the Rural Business Investment Program. Therefore, all references to “Secretary” are being revised to reflect the delegation to the Rural Business-Cooperative Service throughout 7 CFR part 4290.

On December 23, 2011, the Rural Business Cooperatives Service (RBS) published an interim rule in the Federal Register (76 FR 80217) to conform the Rural Business Investment Program (RBIP) to the 2008 Farm Bill, to add provisions for Rural Business Investment Companies (RBIC) that wish to participate in a non-leveraged capacity, and to make several clarifications to the existing rule for leveraged RBICs. In addition, this rule amended the categorical exclusions from the National Environmental Policy Act by adding categorical exclusions for the RBIP for both leveraged and non-leveraged RBICs.

Three commenters—1 from a sponsoring organization and 2 from industry associations, provided a total of 29 comments in response to the interim rule. One comment was supportive of the changes to the rule. Commenter indicated that the change to the program in general would help support rural communities and economic development. There were 4 comments that were neither supportive nor adverse. There were 24 comments that were averse to certain changes in the interim rule, below are listed the substantive comments.

Comments on rural area: One comment supported the direction that UDSA set forth in the interim rule and believes that the USDA has identified an appropriate balance between a regulatory framework that can improve the long-term viability of a non-leverage RBIC while still allowing sufficient flexibility, either expressly or by providing the Secretary with the opportunity to exercise discretion to accommodate unique circumstances.

The four indifferent comments included one wanting some confirmation that Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Credits will be available for community banks. One commenter wanted to work with the program to make it workable with their clients. Two comments wanted the Agency to provide participation requirements for non-leveraged RBICs and work with the associations to survey its members.

Response: The Agency acknowledges the supportive and indifferent comments, and no action is needed for those comments. RBS disagrees with the following adverse comments.

Non-Supportive Comments: Five comments suggested that the rule should have been issued as a proposed rule or final rule instead of an interim rule.

Response: The Administrative Procedures Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)) provides that notice and comment is not required with respect to rules involving listed subject matters areas including “loans, grants, benefits and contracts.” At the time the interim rule was issued, it was the policy of USDA to issue a proposed rule even though this exemption applied unless the agency found for good cause that an interim rule instead of a final rule was in the public interest. On October 28, 2013 (78 FR 64194), USDA published a notice in the Federal Register revoking this policy of seeking notice and comment when the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(3) were otherwise applicable. As stated in the preamble of the interim rule, RBS determined that good cause existed for the issuance of an interim rule; notably, the degree of similarity between this program and Small Business Administration's (SBA) Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) and New Market Venture Capital (NMVC) programs. RBS determined at that time that little was to be gained from a delay in implementing the program for public comment. USDA minimized administrative burdens by adopting as much of the SBA's SBIC and NMVC programs as possible. Accordingly, the interim rule imposed a minimum number of unfamiliar requirements from the SBIC and NMVC programs and the rule should be very familiar to applicants currently participating in either of those programs.

Non-Supportive Comments: One comment suggested that SBA should administer the program.

Response: The comment is not attributable to the interim rule as it does not address how the Agency will implement the non-leverage program. The RBIP program will be administered by the Administrator of the Rural Business and Cooperative Service.

Non-Supportive Comments: One comment suggested that the rule will have significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Response: The Agency disagrees with the concern that the rule will have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The comment is attributed to the preamble section “Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification,” which is intended to address the regulatory burden a rule imposed on small entities.

Non-Supportive Comments: One comment was concerned about the definition of rural being subjective and open-ended.

Response: The Agency disagrees that the definition of rural is subjective and open-ended. The definition of “Rural in character” is statutorily required and will be determined by USDA for this and its other regulations.

Non-Supportive Comments: Ten comments were concerned about Federal Credit Administration (FCA) administering the RBIP.

Response: The RBIP program will be administered by the Administrator of the Rural Business and Cooperative Service.

Non-Supportive Comments: Six comments requested including local and community banks in the RBIP.

Response: The Agency and the program makes every effort to work with community and local banks.

As provided in 7 CFR 4290.300, a Notice of Solicitation for Applications (NOSA) will be published separately for each fiscal year, as necessary, to announce any special limitations and the opening and closing dates for the application window.

Therefore, chapter XLII, title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

The Federal Reserve Banks make primary and secondary credit available to depository institutions as a backup source of funding on a short-term basis, usually overnight. The primary and secondary credit rates are the interest rates that the twelve Federal Reserve Banks charge for extensions of credit under these programs. In accordance with the Federal Reserve Act, the primary and secondary credit rates are established by the boards of directors of the Federal Reserve Banks, subject to review and determination of the Board.

On March 15, 2020, the Board voted to approve a 1.50 percentage point decrease in the primary credit rate in effect at each of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks, thereby decreasing from 1.75 percent to 0.25 percent the rate that each Reserve Bank charges for extensions of primary credit. In addition, the Board had previously approved the renewal of the secondary credit rate formula, the primary credit rate plus 50 basis points. Under the formula, the secondary credit rate in effect at each of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks decreased by 1.50 percentage point as a result of the Board's primary credit rate action, thereby decreasing from 2.25 percent to 0.75 percent the rate that each Reserve Bank charges for extensions of secondary credit. The amendments to Regulation A reflect these rate changes.

The 1.50 percentage point decrease in the primary credit rate was associated with a 1.00 percentage point decrease in the target range for the federal funds rate (from a target range of 1 percent to 1 1/4 percent to a target range of zero percent to 1/4 percent) announced by the Federal Open Market Committee on March 15, 2020, as described in the Board's amendment of its Regulation D published elsewhere in today's Federal Register .

In general, the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”)  1 imposes three principal requirements when an agency promulgates legislative rules (rules made pursuant to Congressionally-delegated authority): (1) Publication with adequate notice of a proposed rule; (2) followed by a meaningful opportunity for the public to comment on the rule's content; and (3) publication of the final rule not less than 30 days before its effective date. The APA provides that notice and comment procedures do not apply if the agency for good cause finds them to be “unnecessary, impracticable, or contrary to the public interest.”  2 Section 553(d) of the APA also provides that publication at least 30 days prior to a rule's effective date is not required for (1) a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction; (2) interpretive rules and statements of policy; or (3) a rule for which the agency finds good cause for shortened notice and publishes its reasoning with the rule. 3 The APA further provides that the notice, public comment, and delayed effective date requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553 do not apply “to the extent that there is involved . . . a matter relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts.”  4

Regulation A establishes the interest rates that the twelve Reserve Banks charge for extensions of primary credit and secondary credit. The Board has determined that the notice, public comment, and delayed effective date requirements of the APA do not apply to these final amendments to Regulation A. The amendments involve a matter relating to loans and are therefore exempt under the terms of the APA. Furthermore, because delay would undermine the Board's action in responding to economic data and conditions, the Board has determined that “good cause” exists within the meaning of the APA to dispense with the notice, public comment, and delayed effective date procedures of the APA with respect to the final amendments to Regulation A.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) does not apply to a rulemaking where a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required. 5 As noted previously, a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required if the final rule involves a matter relating to loans. Furthermore, the Board has determined that it is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for this final rule. Accordingly, the RFA's requirements relating to an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis do not apply.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) of 1995, 6 the Board reviewed the final rule under the authority delegated to the Board by the Office of Management and Budget. The final rule contains no requirements subject to the PRA.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board is amending 12 CFR Chapter II to read as follows:

I. Statutory and Regulatory Background

Section 19 of the Federal Reserve Act (the “Act”) imposes reserve requirements on certain types of deposits and other liabilities of depository institutions. Specifically, section 19(b)(2) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 461(b)(2)) requires each depository institution to maintain reserves against its transaction accounts, nonpersonal time deposits, and Eurocurrency liabilities, as prescribed by Board regulations, for the purpose of implementing monetary policy. Reserve requirements for nonpersonal time deposits and Eurocurrency liabilities have been set at zero percent since 1990.

Depository institutions satisfy reserve requirements by maintaining cash in their vault or, if vault cash is insufficient, by maintaining a balance in an account at a Federal Reserve Bank. The amount that a depository institution must maintain is known as the depository institution's reserve requirement. See 12 CFR 204.4 (computation of reserve requirements). The amount that a depository institution must maintain in an account at a Reserve Bank over and above the amount of its vault cash is known as the depository institution's reserve balance requirement. 12 CFR 204.2(ee) (definition of “reserve balance requirement”). Currently, over 2,500 depository institutions maintain, in aggregate, $150 billion in account balances to satisfy reserve balance requirements.

Transaction account balances maintained at each depository institution are subject to reserve requirement ratios of zero, three, or ten percent. Section 19(b)(11)(A) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 461(b)(11)(A)) provides that a zero percent reserve requirement shall apply at each depository institution to total reservable liabilities that do not exceed a certain amount, known as the reserve requirement exemption amount. Section 19(b)(2) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 461(b)(2)) provides that transaction account balances maintained at each depository institution over the reserve requirement exemption amount and up to a certain amount, known as the low reserve tranche, are subject to a three percent reserve requirement. Transaction account balances over the low reserve tranche are subject to a ten percent reserve requirement. The reserve requirement exemption amount and the low reserve tranche are adjusted annually pursuant to formulas set forth in the Act.

The reserve requirement ratios implemented by the Board pursuant to Section 19 of the Act are set forth in Section 204.4(f) of Regulation D. Currently, the reserve requirement exemption amount is $16.9 million, and the low reserve tranche amount is $127.5 million.

For many years, reserve requirements played a central role in the implementation of monetary policy by creating a stable demand for reserves. In January 2019, the FOMC announced its intention to implement monetary policy in an ample reserves regime. Reserve requirements do not play a significant role in this operating framework. In light of the shift to an ample reserves regime, the Board has determined to reduce the reserve requirement ratios to zero percent effective March 26, 2020. This action eliminates reserve requirements for thousands of depository institutions and will help to support lending to households and businesses.

The Board seeks comment on all aspects of this interim final rule.

In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) section 553(b) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)), the Board finds, for good cause, that providing notice and an opportunity for public comment before the effective date of this rule would be contrary to the public interest. In addition, pursuant to APA section 553(d) (5 U.S.C. 553(d)), the Board finds good cause for making this amendment effective without 30 days advance publication. By improving the liquidity position of depository institutions subject to reserve requirements, implementation of the rule without 30 days advance publication could help alleviate pressures in short-term funding markets as well as support depository institutions' ability to provide financing to households and businesses. The Board believes that any delay in implementing the rule would prove contrary to the public interest. The Board is requesting comment on all aspects of the rule and will make any changes that it considers appropriate or necessary after review of any comments received.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires an agency that is issuing a final rule to prepare and make available a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the impact of the final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603(a). The Regulatory Flexibility Act provides that an agency is not required to prepare and publish a regulatory flexibility analysis if the agency certifies that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

Pursuant to section 605(b), the Board certifies that this interim final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The interim final rule reduces reserve requirement ratios for all depository institutions to zero percent. All depository institutions, including small depository institutions, will benefit from the elimination of reserve requirements. There are no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements associated with the interim final rule.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3506; 5 CFR 1320 Appendix A.1), the Board has reviewed the interim final rule under authority delegated to the Board by the Office of Management and Budget. The rule contains no collections of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Section 772 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act requires the Board to use “plain language” in all proposed and final rules. In light of this requirement, the Board has sought to present the interim final rule in a simple and straightforward manner. The Board invites comment on whether the Board could take additional steps to make the rule easier to understand.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board is amending 12 CFR part 204 as follows:

For monetary policy purposes, section 19 of the Federal Reserve Act (“Act”) imposes reserve requirements on certain types of deposits and other liabilities of depository institutions. 1 Regulation D, which implements section 19 of the Act, requires that a depository institution meet reserve requirements by holding cash in its vault, or if vault cash is insufficient, by maintaining a balance in an account at a Federal Reserve Bank (“Reserve Bank”). 2 Section 19 also provides that balances maintained by or on behalf of certain institutions in an account at a Reserve Bank may receive earnings to be paid by the Reserve Bank at least once each quarter, at a rate or rates not to exceed the general level of short-term interest rates. 3 Institutions that are eligible to receive earnings on their balances held at Reserve Banks (“eligible institutions”) include depository institutions and certain other institutions. 4 Section 19 also provides that the Board may prescribe regulations concerning the payment of earnings on balances at a Reserve Bank. 5 Prior to these amendments, Regulation D specified a rate of 1.10 percent for both IORR and IOER. 6

The Board is amending § 204.10(b)(5) of Regulation D to specify that IORR is 0.10 percent and IOER is 0.10 percent. The amendments represent a 1.00 percentage point decrease in IORR and IOER. The amendments to each rate were associated with a decrease in the target range for the federal funds rate, from a target range of 1 to 1 1/4 percent to a target range of 0 to 1/4 percent, announced by the FOMC on March 15, 2020 with an effective date of March 16, 2020. The FOMC's press release on the same day as the announcement noted that:

A Federal Reserve Implementation note released simultaneously with the announcement stated:

As a result, the Board is amending § 204.10(b)(5) of Regulation D to change IORR to 0.10 percent and IOER to 0.10 percent.

In general, the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”)  7 imposes three principal requirements when an agency promulgates legislative rules (rules made pursuant to Congressionally-delegated authority): (1) Publication with adequate notice of a proposed rule; (2) followed by a meaningful opportunity for the public to comment on the rule's content; and (3) publication of the final rule not less than 30 days before its effective date. The APA provides that notice and comment procedures do not apply if the agency for good cause finds them to be “unnecessary, impracticable, or contrary to the public interest.”  8 Section 553(d) of the APA also provides that publication at least 30 days prior to a rule's effective date is not required for (1) a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction; (2) interpretive rules and statements of policy; or (3) a rule for which the agency finds good cause for shortened notice and publishes its reasoning with the rule. 9

The Board has determined that good cause exists for finding that the notice, public comment, and delayed effective date provisions of the APA are unnecessary, impracticable, or contrary to the public interest with respect to these final amendments to Regulation D. The rate changes for IORR and IOER that are reflected in the final amendments to Regulation D were made with a view towards accommodating commerce and business and with regard to their bearing upon the general credit situation of the country. Notice and public comment would prevent the Board's action from being effective as promptly as necessary in the public interest and would not otherwise serve any useful purpose. Notice, public comment, and a delayed effective date would create uncertainty about the finality and effectiveness of the Board's action and undermine the effectiveness of that action. Accordingly, the Board has determined that good cause exists to dispense with the notice, public comment, and delayed effective date procedures of the APA with respect to these final amendments to Regulation D.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) does not apply to a rulemaking where a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required. 10 As noted previously, the Board has determined that it is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for this final rule. Accordingly, the RFA's requirements relating to an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis do not apply.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) of 1995, 11 the Board reviewed the final rule under the authority delegated to the Board by the Office of Management and Budget. The final rule contains no requirements subject to the PRA.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board amends 12 CFR part 204 as follows:

I. Background

Section 401 of the EGRRCPA, (Pub. L. 115-174, section 401) amended the Dodd-Frank Act requirements to implement stress testing. Prior to the passage of the EGRRCPA, 1 section 165(i) of the Dodd-Frank Act  2 required each financial company with total consolidated assets of more than $10 billion to conduct annual stress tests. In addition, section 165 required FHFA to issue regulations for regulated entities to conduct their stress tests, which were required to include at least three different stress testing scenarios: “baseline,” “adverse,” and “severely adverse.”  3 In September 2013, FHFA published in the Federal Register a final rule implementing the Dodd-Frank Act stress testing requirements. FHFA's regulation, located at 12 CFR part 1238, requires each regulated entity to conduct an annual stress test based on scenarios provided by FHFA and consistent with FHFA prescribed methodologies and practices. The regulation also requires that the agency issue to the regulated entities stress test scenarios that are generally consistent with and comparable to those developed by the FRB not later than 30 days after the FRB publishes its scenarios. 4

Section 401 of EGRRCPA amended certain aspects of the stress testing requirements applicable to financial companies in section 165(i) of the Dodd-Frank Act. 5 Specifically, after 18 months, section 401 of EGRRCPA raises the minimum asset threshold for application of the stress testing requirement from $10 billion to $250 billion in total consolidated assets, revises the requirement for financial companies to conduct stress tests “annually,” and instead requires them to conduct stress tests “periodically”, and no longer requires the stress test to include an “adverse” scenario, thus reducing the number of required stress test scenarios from three to two.

On December 16, 2019, FHFA published in the Federal Register proposed amendments to the stress testing requirements for the regulated entities. The comment period closed on January 15, 2020. FHFA received one comment which stated that the threshold of $250 billion in total consolidated assets was too high and lowering the threshold to $100 billion in total consolidated assets would be more appropriate. EGRRCPA set the threshold at $250 billion in total consolidated assets and the proposed rule reflects this statutory requirement. The Enterprises will continue to be covered by the rule at its new threshold, however, the Banks will not. After several years of assessing the Banks' stress tests, FHFA believes that its other supervision tools are sufficient for the agency's purposes, and that the additional burden on the Banks of conducting the annual stress tests is not necessary. FHFA retains under its general supervisory powers the discretion to require stress testing by the Banks if FHFA determines that it would be useful. Therefore, FHFA is adopting as its final rule the same rule proposed on December 16, 2019, without any change.

FHFA is adopting the proposed revisions to FHFA's rule without change as follows: The rule discontinues the Dodd-Frank Act stress testing of the Banks; prescribes the frequency of stress testing; and reduces the number of scenarios mandated for Enterprise Dodd-Frank Act stress testing. These revisions are described in more detail below.

As described above, section 401 of EGRRCPA amends section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act by raising the minimum threshold for financial companies required to conduct stress tests from $10 billion to $250 billion. As there are no Banks with total consolidated assets of over $250 billion, the Banks will no longer be subject to the stress testing requirements of this rule. As the total consolidated assets for each Enterprise exceed the $250 billion threshold, the Enterprises remain subject to stress testing under this rule.

Section 401 of EGRRCPA also revised the requirement under section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act for financial companies to conduct stress tests, changing the required frequency from “annual” to “periodic.” The term “periodic” is not defined in EGRRCPA. Because of the Enterprises' total consolidated asset amounts, their function in the mortgage market, size of their retained portfolios, and their share of the mortgage securitization market, FHFA will continue to require the Enterprises to conduct stress tests on an annual basis. This is consistent with FHFA's regulatory mission to ensure each of the regulated entities “operates in a safe and sound manner.”  6

As discussed above, section 401 of EGRRCPA amends section 165(i) of the Dodd-Frank Act to no longer require the FRB to include an “adverse” stress-testing scenario, reducing the number of stress test scenarios from three to two. The “baseline” scenario is a set of conditions that affect the U.S. economy or the financial condition of the regulated entities, and that reflect the consensus views of the economic and financial outlook, and the “severely adverse” scenario is a more severe set of conditions and the most stringent of the former three scenarios. Although the “adverse” scenario has provided some additional value in limited circumstances, the “baseline” and “severely adverse” scenarios largely cover the full range of expected and stressful conditions. Therefore FHFA does not consider it necessary, for its supervisory purposes, to require the additional burden of analyzing an “adverse” scenario.

In accordance with section 165(i)(2)(C), FHFA has coordinated with both the FRB and the Federal Insurance Office (FIO). On November 1, 2019, the FRB published a final rule which revised “the minimum threshold for state member banks to conduct stress tests from $10 billion to $250 billion,” and revised “the frequency with which state member banks with assets greater than $250 billion would be required to conduct stress tests,” in addition to removing the adverse scenario from the list of required scenarios. 7 The FDIC adopted its final rule;  8 and the OCC its final rule. 9 Although FHFA's final rule is not identical to those of the FRB, the FDIC, and the OCC, it is consistent and comparable with them.

The final rule does not contain any collections of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. ). Therefore, FHFA has not submitted any information to the Office of Management and Budget for review.

This final rule is effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register . Section 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides for a delayed effective date after publication of a rule, except “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” The changes to part 1238 primarily cover how FHFA will implement the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) stress testing requirements, as amended by section 401 of EGRRCPA. These amendments, applicable to large financial companies, became effective on November 24, 2019. Consistent with section 553(d)(3) and for the reasons discussed below, FHFA finds good cause exists to publish this final rule with an immediate effective date. Without this rule, the Enterprises and Federal Home Loan Banks will be required to conduct stress testing under the prior rule, incurring additional expense and burden which FHFA has determined is not necessary for purposes of safety and soundness. In addition, an immediate effective date permits FHFA to synchronize its supervisory efforts related to stress testing with the FRB and the FDIC. Accordingly, the FHFA finds good cause for the final rule to take effect immediately upon publication in the Federal Register .

The final rule applies only to the regulated entities, which do not come within the meaning of small entities as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (see 5 U.S.C. 601(6)). Therefore, in accordance with section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the General Counsel of FHFA certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

In accordance with the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), FHFA has determined that this final rule is not a major rule and has verified this determination with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the OMB.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, and under the authority of 12 U.S.C. 5365(i), FHFA amends part 1238 of Title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations 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 MDHI Model 600N helicopters with a yaw stability augmentation system and with an M/R link assembly part number (P/N) 600N7617-1 installed. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 10, 2018 (83 FR 45580). The NPRM was prompted by a report from MDHI that during a review of the Airworthiness Limitations section of the applicable maintenance manual, MDHI discovered that it did not include a life limit for link assemblies installed on MDHI Model 600N helicopters with a yaw stability augmentation system. Link assembly P/N 600N7617-1, which is made of aluminum, is a life-limited part with a life limit of 15,000 hours time-in-service (TIS). MDHI subsequently revised the Airworthiness Limitations section of the maintenance manual to include the life limit. The NPRM proposed to require creating a component history card or equivalent record for each affected link assembly, if one does not exist, and recording a life limit of 15,000 hours TIS. This NPRM also proposed to require determining the hours TIS of the link assembly and removing the link assembly from service according to the new life limit. The proposed requirements were intended to prevent a link assembly remaining in service beyond its life limit, which could result in fatigue failure, loss of M/R blade pitch control, and subsequent loss of helicopter control.

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.

MDHI expressed concern that the requirements proposed by the NPRM do not definitively eliminate the risk of a life limit being exceeded.

MDHI stated that link assembly P/N 600N7617-1 is not serialized and is aware that link assemblies have been installed on aircraft with multiple serial numbers, possibly indicating that link assemblies P/N 600N7617-1 may not have a reliable TIS record. MDHI also stated if the TIS is unknown, arbitrarily setting the TIS to the aircraft hours may not adequately reflect the actual TIS of link assembly P/N 600N7617-1.

The FAA acknowledges link assembly P/N 600N7617-1 is not serialized and the possibility of cross-installation on multiple aircraft. However, the FAA has determined that using the hours TIS of the helicopter mitigates the risk to an acceptable level because there is a small number of link assemblies P/N 600N7617-1 in-service, the usage rate for MDHI Model 600N helicopters is similar throughout the fleet, and the 15,000 hours TIS life limit includes a built-in life reduction for different variabilities.

MDHI requested the FAA mandate the replacement of link assembly P/N 600N7617-1 with link assembly P/N 600N7617-5. MDHI explained that installation of link assembly P/N 600N7617-5 is consistent with production and field modification installations of the yaw stability augmentation system (YSAS), which requires installation of link assembly P/N 600N7617-5, and that link assembly P/N 600N7617-5 is not subject to life-limiting fatigue, therefore eliminating this potential safety risk.

The FAA agrees that replacing link assembly P/N 600N7617-1 with link assembly P/N 600N7617-5 is beneficial but disagrees that the replacement is required for airworthiness. Link assembly P/N 600N7617-5 is an upgraded part made of steel and is not subject to a life limit. The FAA disagrees with requiring replacement of link assembly P/N 600N7617-1 with link assembly P/N 600N7617-5 because link assembly P/N 600N7617-1 is airworthy within the life limit of 15,000 TIS. The FAA provided additional information about this response, which can be found in the AD docket. The FAA has added an optional terminating action to the requirements of this AD that specifies removing link assembly P/N 600N7617-1 from service and installing link assembly P/N 600N7617-5 instead.

The FAA has reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed except for the changes described previously. These changes are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM to address the unsafe condition and do not add any additional burden upon the public to that already proposed in the NPRM. The FAA has also determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of this final rule.

The FAA reviewed MDHI CSP-HMI-2 MDHI Maintenance Manual, Chapter 04, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 47, dated September 30, 2016. This service information specifies a 15,000 hour TIS life limit for link assembly P/N 600N7617-1 for helicopters with a yaw stability augmentation system.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 26 helicopters of U.S. Registry. The FAA estimates that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour.

Determining the hours TIS of each link assembly and updating the aircraft records takes about 30 minutes, for a cost of $43 per helicopter and $1,118 for the U.S. fleet.

Replacing a link assembly, if needed, takes about 2 work-hours, and parts cost about $984 for an estimated replacement cost of $1,154 per link per helicopter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background

The FAA published a final rule in the Federal Register for Docket No. FAA-2019-0729 (85 FR 10054, February 21, 2020), amending VOR Federal airways V-82 and V-217, and RNAV route T-383 in the vicinity of Baudette, MN. The effective date for that final rule is May 21, 2020. However, the decommissioning of the Baudette, MN, VOR has a direct impact on the ILS or LOC RWY 31 instrument approach procedure at Warroad International Memorial Airport, MN, because the DME required for this procedure is out of service.

The Minnesota DOT is currently in the process of purchasing new DME equipment to install at the Warroad International Memorial Airport, MN. Upon purchase and installation of the new equipment, Minnesota DOT has committed to have the required Flight Inspection completed and the DME certified for use by September 10, 2020; therefore, the rule amending V-82, V-217, and T-383 is delayed to coincide with that date.

VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) and RNAV T-routes are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA Order 7400.11D dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airways and RNAV T-route listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.

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

Section 553(b)(3)(B) of Title 5, United States Code, (the Administrative Procedure Act) 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. The FAA finds that prior notice and public comment to this final rule is unnecessary due to the brief length of the extension of the effective date and the fact that there is no substantive change to the rule.”

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the effective date of the final rule, Airspace Docket 19-AGL-12, as published in the Federal Register on February 21, 2020 (85 FR 10054), FR Doc. 2020-03282, is hereby delayed until September 10, 2020.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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 the 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 supports the air traffic service route structure in the southeastern United States to maintain the efficient flow of air traffic.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2019-0687 in the Federal Register (84 FR 51068; September 27, 2019) amending 12 existing Q-routes, in the southeastern United States in support of the Florida Metroplex Project. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

The preamble text in the NPRM proposed to amend the descriptions of numerous existing Q routes. However, the regulatory text in the NPRM incorrectly listed seven of the routes as “new” instead of “amended” routes. This rule corrects the regulatory text by replacing “new” with “amended” in the title lines of the descriptions for the affected Q routes. This change is editorial only, and does not alter the alignment of the affected routes.

Additionally, the NPRM proposed to add the OVENP, FL, and SUSYQ, GA waypoints (WP) to the description of Q-87. Subsequently, the FAA determined that the two WPs are not required in the part 71 description of Q-87 because they do not signify a course change for the route. As a result, there is no need to amend the part 71 route description to add the WPs to Q-87. Consequently, Q-87 is removed from this final rule.

Area navigation routes are published in paragraph 2006, of FAA Order 7400.11D dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The area navigation routes listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.

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

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11D lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by amending 11 existing Q-routes, in the southeastern United States in support of the Florida Metroplex Project. The amendments add additional waypoints (WP) to various Q-routes. These added WPs give air traffic controllers more predictability, and provide users with more options when filing flight plans. Amendments are made to the descriptions of the following routes: Q-65, Q-77, Q-79, Q-81, Q-85, Q-93, Q-99, Q-109, Q-110, Q-116, and Q-118.

The Q-route amendments are as follows (full route descriptions are listed in “The Amendment” section, below):

Q-65: Q-65 extends between the KPASA, FL, WP, and the Rosewood, OH, VORTAC. The FAA is relocating the southern end point of the route by approximately 50 nautical miles (NM) to the southwest from the KPASA, FL, WP, to the MGNTY, FL, WP (located near the St Petersburg, FL, (PIE) VORTAC. The KPASA WP is removed from the route. The purpose of this amendment is to realign the southern end of Q-65 to a point over Florida's west coast thereby enhancing separation from other air traffic using central Florida routes. The rest of Q-65 (between DOFFY, FL, and Rosewood, OH), remains as currently charted.

Q-77: Q-77 extends between the OCTAL, FL, WP, and the WIGVO, GA, WP. This action updates the latitude/longitude coordinates for the OCTAL, FL, the STYMY, FL, and the WAKKO, FL, WPs. The coordinates for the OCTAL, FL, WP are changed from “Lat. 26°09′01.91″ N, long. 080°06′37.51″ W,” to “Lat. 26°09′01.92″ N, long. 080°12′11.60″ W” This moves OCTAL approximately 5 NM to the west of its current position. The STYMY, FL, WP, coordinates are changed from “Lat. 28°01′09.65″ N, long. 081°08′41.27″ W,” to “Lat. 28°02′12.25″ N, long. 081°09′05.47″ W.” This moves STYMY approximately 1 NM to the north of its current position. The WAKKO, FL, WP coordinates are changed from “Lat. 28°18′00.69″ N, long. 081°24′53.49″ W,” to “Lat. 28°20′31.57″ N, long. 081°18′32.14″ W.” This change moves WAKKO approximately 6 NM to the east of its current position. Updating the coordinates for these WPs provides “tie-ins” for new procedures to Q-77. The FAA is also removing the WASUL, FL, WP (located between the WAKKO, FL, and the MJAMS, FL, WPs) from Q-77. Removal of the WASUL WP, along with the updated positions of the STYMY and WAKKO WPs, allow for straightening of the route segments between the STYMY and MJAMS WPs.

Q-79: Q-79 extends between the MCLAW, FL, WP, and the Atlanta, GA, (ATL) VORTAC. This action adds two new points: the EVANZ, FL, and the IISLY, GA, WPs, between the existing DOFFY, FL, and the YUESS, GA, WPs.

Q-81: Q-81 extends between the TUNSL, FL, WP, and the HONID, GA, WP. The MGNTY, FL, WP is added between the existing FARLU, FL, and the ENDEW, FL, WPs. The SNAPY, FL, the BULZI, FL, and the IPOKE, GA, WPs are be added between the existing NICKI, FL, and the HONID, GA, WPs.

Q-85: Q-85 extends between the LPERD, FL, WP, and the SMPRR, NC, WP. This change adds the BEEGE, GA, WP between the existing LPERD, FL, and the GIPPL, GA, WPs.

Q-93: Q-93 extends between the MCLAW, FL, WP, and the QUIWE, SC, WP. The SUSYQ, GA, WP is added between the existing GIPPL, GA, and the ISUZO, GA, WPs. The GURGE, SC, WP is added between the ISUZO, GA, and the FISHO, SC, WPs.

Q-99: Q-99 extends between the DOFFY, FL, WP, and the POLYY, NC, WP. This action extends the southern end of the route from the current DOFFY, FL, WP approximately 75 NM southeast to the KPASA, FL, WP. Adding the KPASA WP expands the availability of RNAV routing in the area. The rest of Q-99 (between DOFFY, FL, and POLYY, NC), remains as currently charted.

Q-109: Q-109 extends between the DOFFY, FL, WP, and the LAANA, NC, WP. This action relocates the southern end of the route from the current DOFFY, FL, WP, to the KNOST, OG, WP (which is located over the Gulf of Mexico, approximately 78 NM southwest of the DOFFY, WP). The DOFFY, WP is removed from Q-109. This change provides connection to the U.S. National Airspace System for users from Mexico and Central America. In addition, the DEANER, FL, the BRUTS, FL, and the EVANZ, FL, WPs are added to the route between the KNOST, OG, WP, and the CAMJO, FL, WP. After CAMJO, Q-109 extends to the LAANA, NC, WP, as currently charted.

Q-110: Q-110 extends between the BLANS, IL, WP, and the OCTAL, FL, WP. The coordinates for the OCTAL, FL, WP are updated as described above. In addition, an editorial change is made to the order of the WPs listed in the Q-110 description and published in FAA Order 7400.11D. Currently, the route description lists the points from “BLANS, IL, to OCTAL, FL.” This change simply reverses the order of the points listed in the Q-110 description in Order 7400.11D to read “OCTAL, FL, to BLANS, IL.” This change matches airspace database documentation. Except for the change to the OCTAL, FL, WP coordinates, the amendment the order of points does not affect the alignment of Q-110.

Q-116: Q-116 extends between the Vulcan, AL, (VUZ) VORTAC, and the OCTAL, FL, WP. Q-116 is amended by updating the coordinates for the OCTAL, FL, WP, as described above. In addition, the DEANR, FL, WP is added between the existing MICES, FL, and the PATOY, FL, WPs.

Q-118: Q-118 extends between the Marion, IN, (MZZ) VOR/DME, and the PEAKY, FL, WP, FL. The BRIES, FL, WP is removed from the route description as it is no longer required for air traffic control purposes.

Note: In the regulatory text, below, some route descriptions include waypoints located over international waters. In those route descriptions, in place of a two-letter state abbreviation, either “OA,” meaning “Offshore Atlantic,” or “OG,” meaning “Offshore Gulf of Mexico,” is used.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (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 only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action of modifying the following 11 high altitude RNAV routes: Q-65, Q-77, Q-79, Q-81, Q-85, Q-93, Q-99, Q-109, Q-110, Q-116, and Q-118, qualifies for a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F—Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points). As such, this action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, this action has been reviewed for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis, and it is determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 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 amends Class D and E airspace at Boire Field, Nashua, NH, to support IFR operations in the area.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register (84 FR 68385, December 16, 2019) for Docket No. FAA-2019-0921 to amend Class D and E airspace at Boire Field, Nashua, NH, by eliminating the northwest extension of the airport, due to the cancellation of the NDB approach, and by updating the geographic coordinates of this airport, as well as Manchester VOR/DME. In addition, the FAA recognizes the name change of Pepperell Airport (formerly Sports Center Airport), and replaces the outdated term Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement in the legal descriptions of associated Class D and E airspace of Boire Field.

Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraphs 5000, 6004, and 6005, respectively of FAA Order 7400.11D, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11D lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amends Class D, Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D surface area, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface at Boire Field, Nashua, NH, by eliminating the northwest extension of the airport, due to the cancellation of the NDB approach. The FAA also updates the geographic coordinates of Boire Field and Manchester VOR/DME to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. In addition, this action recognizes the name change of Pepperell Airport (formerly Sports Center Airport). Also, an editorial change is made replacing the outdated term Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement in the associated Class D and E airspace legal descriptions for Boire Field. Subsequent to publication, the FAA found the Manchester VOR/DME was incorrectly identified as Manchester VORTAC. This action corrects that error. In addition, a review of the airspace resulting from the decommissioning of the CHERN NDB indicated that the radius of the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface needed to be increased from 7.0 miles to 7.9 miles. These changes are necessary for continued safety and management of IFR operations at this airport.

FAA Order 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. 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 only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Authority for This Rulemaking

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 the 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 modifies the route structure in the National Airspace System as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic.

In 2014, the FAA established 14 RNAV Q-routes and modified 4 Q-routes to enhance the efficiency of the National Airspace System (NAS) by improving the flow of air traffic in the vicinity of the Atlanta, GA, and Charlotte, NC, Metroplex areas. One of the Q-routes established at that time was Q-56, which was designed with the KBLER, GA, waypoint included in the route between the CATLN, AL, fix and the KELLN, SC, waypoint.

The FAA recently published a rule in the Federal Register for Docket No. FAA-2018-0817 (85 FR 3814; January 23, 2020) to amend and establish multiple Air Traffic Service (ATS) routes due to the planned decommissioning of the Hobby, TX, VHF Omnidirectional Range/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) navigation aid. One of the routes amended in that action was Q-56, which included an amendment removing the KBLER, GA, waypoint.

The removal of the KBLER, GA, waypoint from Q-56 has inadvertently created safety issues within the Atlanta Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) airspace by effectively moving the affected route segment 3 miles to the south at a heavily used choke point east of the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. By moving the affected route segment south in that area, controllers are now required to ensure that point-out coordination of aircraft on Q-56 is accomplished because the route in that area is less than 2.5 miles from the adjacent ATC sector boundaries. If air traffic control misses this additional point-out coordination, the result will be an airspace violation and possible loss of aircraft separation.

The unintended airway change also effects how aircraft inbound to Charlotte/Douglas International Airport are handled via the JONZE standard terminal arrival route (STAR). The original Q-56 route design, with the KBLER waypoint included, ensured that Charlotte/Douglas International Airport arrival aircraft flying the JONZE STAR would diverge from Q-56 at a point where Atlanta ARTCC controllers were able to transition the arrival aircraft through overflight traffic in the area in a manner that would meet descent restrictions established by the Charlotte Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) controllers based on current traffic flows. With the affected Q-56 route segment being relocated closer to the adjacent ATC sector boundaries, it has created additional safety concerns associated with ATC being able to descend Charlotte/Douglas International Airport arrival aircraft in a timely manner to meet descent restrictions and impacting the efficiencies realized by the Charlotte/Douglas International Airport Optimized Profile Descent (OPD) procedures. Further, the possibility that ATC may be unable to meet descent restrictions for Charlotte/Douglas International Airport arrival aircraft could also result in the Charlotte TRACON being unable to accept the arrival aircraft into their airspace; thus creating airspace congestion and safety issues for ATC to resolve.

Lastly, the RNAV Q-routes that were established in 2014 within Atlanta ARTCC's airspace, which included Q-56, were designed to ensure the required separation between the routes to integrate the departure flows from two of the top 10 busiest airports, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport and Charlotte/Douglas International Airport. To support the integration of departure flows, procedural separation was leveraged for as long as possible in order to establish air traffic flow efficiencies supporting both airports. With the affected Q-56 route segment now relocated 3 miles south of its original position, another unintended safety issue has been created by changing the point where conflictions between Q-56 and Q-64 occur. Absent the procedural separation benefits associated with Q-56 being charted over the KBLER waypoint, the complexity of separating aircraft operating on Q-56 and Q-64 is increased significantly; requiring additional controllers to overcome potential loss of separation safety issues.

RNAV Q-routes are published in paragraph 2006 of FAA Order 7400.11D, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The RNAV Q-route listed in this rule will be subsequently published in the Order.

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

This document amends FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11D lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying RNAV route Q-56. Specifically, this action re-establishes Q-56 over the KBLER, GA, waypoint to resolve safety issues resulting from the waypoint having been removed from the route recently. Unanticipated safety issues identified subsequent to the publication of the rule that removed the KBLER waypoint from Q-56 have made this action necessary. The revised Q-56 RNAV route, overlying the KBLER waypoint, will reduce the unintended safety related issues of increased ATC sectors workload and complexity, reduce the increased ATC coordination and pilot-to-controller communications requirements, and safely restore the high altitude enroute structure supporting previous air traffic flows and capacity efficiencies in the Atlanta, GA, and Charlotte, NC, Metroplex areas. Because the issues described above require prompt resolution, notice and public procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.

The RNAV route modification accomplished by this action is outlined below.

Q-56: Q-56 extends between the San Antonio, TX, VHF Omnidirectional Range/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) navigation aid and the KIWII, VA, waypoint (WP). The KBLER, GA, WP is added between the CATLN, AL, fix and the KELLN, SC, WP. The unaffected portions of the existing route remain as charted.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (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 only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA has determined that this action of modifying RNAV route Q-56 near Atlanta, GA, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points). As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. The FAA has determined no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

I. Background

Executive Order 13891, Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents, requires agencies to finalize regulations to set forth processes and procedures for issuing guidance documents to include:

• Requirements for each guidance document to clearly state that it does not bind the public, except as authorized by law or as incorporated into a contract.

• Procedures for the public to petition for withdrawal or modification of a particular guidance document, including a designation of the officials to which the petition should be directed.

• Provisions requiring significant guidance documents, unless exempted for reasons of exigency, safety, health, or other compelling cause as determined by NASA and the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) Administrator, to undergo a 30-day public notice and comment period; be approved on a non-delegable basis by the NASA Administrator; be reviewed by OIRA; and comply with the applicable requirements for guidance documents including significant regulatory actions.

This final rule also incorporates NASA's existing internal policy and procedures, NASA Policy Directive (NPD) 1400.2, Publishing NASA Documents in the Federal Register and Responding to Regulatory Actions, into the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) in response to the order. NPD 1400.2 establishes the Agency's policy, procedures, and responsibilities for issuing guidance documents to ensure that the required review and clearance is obtained before issuance and all stages of the rulemaking process are followed.

Executive Orders 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). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. This rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 13132 requires agencies to ensure meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that may 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. This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in the order, and NASA has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect or federalism implications on the states and would not preempt any state law or regulation or affect the states' ability to discharge traditional state governmental functions. Therefore, consultation with the states is not necessary.

This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175. NASA has determined that because this rulemaking does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments or impose substantial direct compliance costs on them, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 does not apply.

This rule is not an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.

It has been certified that this rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601) because it would not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This final rule merely incorporates requirements of the order and NASA's existing internal policy and procedures for issuing guidance documents into the CFR. Therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553, the Administrator of NASA has concluded that there is good cause to publish this rule without prior opportunity for public comment because the action is of Agency organization, procedure, or practice. See 5 U.S.C 553(b)(3)(A).

Part 1204 is established under the National Aeronautics and Space Act (Space Act). In accordance with 51 U.S.C. 20113(a), “In the performance of its functions, the Administration is authorized to make, promulgate, issue, rescind, and amend rules and regulations governing the manner of its operations and the exercise of the powers vested in it by law.”

This rule does not contain an information collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

This rule will not result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

For reasons set forth in the preamble, and under the authority of 51 U.S.C. 20113, NASA is amending 14 CFR part 1204 as follows:

I. Background

The Inflation Adjustment Act, as amended by the 2015 Act, required Federal agencies to adjust the civil penalty amounts within their jurisdiction for inflation by July 1, 2016. Subsequent to the 2016 adjustment, Federal agencies were required to make an annual inflation adjustment by January 15 every year thereafter. 1 Under the amended Act, any increase in a civil penalty made under the Act will apply to penalties assessed after the increase takes effect, including penalties whose associated violation predated the increase. 2 The inflation adjustments mandated by the Act serve to maintain the deterrent effect of civil penalties and to promote compliance with the law.

Pursuant to the Act, adjustments to the civil penalties are required to be made by January 15 of each year. The annual adjustments are based on the percent change between the U.S. Department of Labor's Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (“CPI-U”) for the month of October preceding the date of the adjustment and the CPI-U for October of the prior year (28 U.S.C. 2461 note, section (5)(b)(1)). Based on that formula, the cost-of-living adjustment multiplier for 2020 is 1.01764 percent. Pursuant to the 2015 Act, adjustments are rounded to the nearest dollar.

This final rule makes the required adjustments to civil penalties for 2020. Applying the 2020 multiplier above, the adjustments for each penalty are summarized below.

This rule codifies these civil penalty amounts by amending parts 1264 and 1271 of title 14 of the CFR.

NASA issues this rule under the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, 3 as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, 4 and further amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, 5 which requires NASA to adjust the civil penalties within its jurisdiction for inflation according to a statutorily prescribed formula.

Section 553 of title 5 of the United States Code generally requires an agency to publish a rule at least 30 days before its effective date to allow for advance notice and opportunity for public comments. 6 After the initial adjustment for 2016, however, the Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act requires agencies to make subsequent annual adjustments for inflation “notwithstanding section 553 of title 5, United States Code.” Moreover, the 2020 adjustments are made according to a statutory formula that does not provide for agency discretion. Accordingly, a delay in effectiveness of the 2020 adjustments is not required.

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. This rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 and was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This rule is not an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because this final rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.

Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not require an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis. 7

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 8 NASA reviewed this final rule. No collections of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act are contained in the final rule.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is amending 14 CFR parts 1264 and 1271 as follows:

Notice of proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on September 13, 2019; New York Register on October 2, 2019; Pennsylvania Bulletin on September 21, 2019; and Maryland Register on October 11, 2019. The Commission convened a public hearing on October 31, 2019 in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. A written comment period was held open through November 12, 2019. Concurrent with the proposed rule, the Commission also released a draft Consumptive Use Mitigation Policy for public review and comment.

The Commission received four comments on the proposed rule and policy. Two of the comments were fully supportive of the rule and policy and offered no suggested changes. The additional two comments were supportive but offered a few suggestions for revisions to the rule and/or the policy.

One commenter sought clarification of the term “present” low flow conditions in § 806.22(b)(1)(i) and offered alternative phrasing. The Commission believes the phrasing of the rule is not ambiguous and provided clarification in the comment response document. Two commenters asked for the Commission to further amend § 806.22(b)(1)(iii) related to discontinuance. One commenter wanted discontinuance to be limited to a 45 day period. This would be a new requirement and a change to the current practice that requires discontinuance to endure for the entire Commission declared low flow period, and the Commission declines to make this change. Another commenter suggested that 20,000 gallon per day threshold for discontinuance be on an average 30 day basis instead of a peak day basis established in the rulemaking. The Commission was purposeful in the discontinuance revision to be based on a peak day rate. The use of a 30-day average rate would be inappropriate given it would allow an exceedance of the Commission's regulatory threshold that could introduce impacts during Commission-designated low flow periods, which do not have a set minimum or maximum duration.

Accordingly, after thorough review and analysis of the comments, the Commission has not made any changes to the rulemaking as proposed. To the degree the comments seek clarification of the rules or explanation how they will be implemented, the Commission believes that can be addressed through explanation or clarifications in fact sheets, application instructions and other implementation documents. A more detailed comment response document has been prepared and is available upon request and also at the Commission's website listed above.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Susquehanna River Basin Commission amends 18 CFR part 806 as follows:

Background

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), a communicable disease caused by a new (novel) coronavirus named SARS-CoV-2, is a respiratory disease that can cause fever, cough, and difficulty breathing, with reported illnesses ranging from mildly symptomatic to severe illness and death. Although the virus that causes COVID-19 was originally detected in China, it has resulted in a pandemic with cases in 158 countries, including in the United States and Mexico. On January 30, 2020, the Director-General of the World Health Organization declared the outbreak a “public health emergency of international concern” under the International Health Regulations (2005). 1 On January 31, 2020, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services declared a nationwide “public health emergency” under section 319 of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 274d, as a result of confirmed cases of COVID-19. 2 On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization announced that the COVID-19 outbreak can be characterized as a pandemic. On March 13, 2020, the President determined that the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency determination under section 501(b) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207. In addition, on March 13, 2020, the President declared a national emergency under sections 201 and 301 of the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. 3 The Mexican Ministry of Education has closed all schools from March 20 until April 20, and between March 23 and April 19, the Mexican government has implemented a domestic social-distancing campaign to minimize the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19.

Given the outbreak and continued transmission and spread of COVID-19 within the United States and globally, I have determined that the risk of continued transmission and spread of COVID-19 between the United States and Mexico poses a “specific threat to human life or national interests.”

U.S. and Mexican officials have mutually determined that non-essential travel between the United States and Mexico poses additional risk of transmission and spread of COVID-19 and places the populace of both nations at increased risk of contracting COVID-19. Moreover, given the sustained human-to-human transmission of the virus, maintaining the current level of travel between the two nations places the personnel staffing land ports of entry between the United States and Mexico, as well as the individuals traveling through these ports of entry, at increased risk of exposure to COVID-19. Accordingly, and consistent with the authority granted in 19 U.S.C. 1318(b)(1)(C) and (b)(2), 4 I have determined that land ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexican border will suspend normal operations and process for entry only those travelers engaged in “essential travel,” defined below, for entry into the United States. Given the definition of “essential travel” below, this temporary alteration in land ports of entry operations should not interrupt legitimate trade between the two nations or disrupt critical supply chains that ensure food, fuel, medicine, and other critical materials reach individuals on both sides of the border.

For purposes of the temporary alteration in certain designated ports of entry operations authorized under 19 U.S.C. 1318(b)(1)(C) and (b)(2), travel through the land ports of entry and ferry terminals along the United States-Mexico border shall be limited to “essential travel,” which includes, but is not limited to—

• U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents returning to the United States;

• Individuals traveling for medical purposes ( e.g., to receive medical treatment in the United States);

• Individuals traveling to attend educational institutions;

• Individuals traveling to work in the United States ( e.g., individuals working in the farming or agriculture industry who must travel between the United States and Mexico in furtherance of such work);

• Individuals traveling for emergency response and public health purposes ( e.g., government officials or emergency responders entering the United States to support Federal, state, local, tribal, or territorial government efforts to respond to COVID-19 or other emergencies);

• Individuals engaged in lawful cross-border trade ( e.g., truck drivers supporting the movement of cargo between the United States and Mexico);

• Individuals engaged in official government travel or diplomatic travel;

• Members of the U.S. Armed Forces, and the spouses and children of members of the U.S. Armed Forces, returning to the United States; and

• Individuals engaged in military-related travel or operations.

The following travel does not fall within the definition of “essential travel” for purposes of this Notification—

• Individuals traveling for tourism purposes ( e.g., sightseeing, recreation, gambling, or attending cultural events).

At this time, this Notification does not apply to air, freight rail, or sea travel between the United States and Mexico, but does apply to passenger rail and ferry travel between the United States and Mexico. These restrictions are temporary in nature and shall remain in effect until 11:59 p.m. EDT on April 20, 2020. This Notification may be amended or rescinded prior to that time, based on circumstances associated with the specific threat.

The Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is hereby directed to prepare and distribute appropriate guidance to CBP personnel on implementation of the temporary measures set forth in this Notification. The CBP Commissioner may determine that other forms of travel, such as travel in furtherance of economic stability or social order, constitute “essential travel” under this Notification. Further, the CBP Commissioner may, on an individualized basis and for humanitarian reasons or for other purposes in the national interest, permit the processing of travelers to the United States not engaged in “essential travel.”

The Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, Chad F. Wolf, having reviewed and approved this document, is delegating the authority to electronically sign this document to Chad Mizelle, who is the Acting General Counsel for DHS, for purposes of publication in the Federal Register .

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), a communicable disease caused by a new (novel) coronavirus named SARS-CoV-2, is a respiratory disease that can cause fever, cough, and difficulty breathing, with reported illnesses ranging from mildly symptomatic to severe illness and death. Although the virus that causes COVID-19 was originally detected in China, it has resulted in a pandemic with cases in 158 countries, including in the United States and Canada. On January 30, 2020, the Director-General of the World Health Organization declared the outbreak a “public health emergency of international concern” under the International Health Regulations (2005). 1 On January 31, 2020, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services declared a nationwide “public health emergency” under section 319 of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 274d, as a result of confirmed cases of COVID-19. 2 On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization announced that the COVID-19 outbreak can be characterized as a pandemic. On March 13, 2020, the President determined that the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency determination under section 501(b) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207. In addition, on March 13, 2020, the President declared a national emergency under sections 201 and 301 of the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. 3 To protect against the COVID-19 threat in Canada, the Government of Canada announced measures effective March 18, 2020 to close its borders to foreign nationals entering the country and to redirect international flight arrivals to predesignated airports. Additionally, multiple provinces within Canada declared states of emergency due to the COVID-19 outbreak.

The FDA Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA) has reorganized to align field activities by FDA-regulated commodity ( e.g., food, drugs, medical devices) or program area ( e.g., imports). As a result, ORA division officials now perform certain duties such as those related to administrative appeals and informal hearings previously performed by district officials. FDA regulations included numerous references to district officials. The revisions made by this rule update these references to division officials, but do not alter any substantive standards.

The regulations specified in this rule have been revised to replace references to the ORA district official, including “District Director”, with references to the ORA division official, including “Division Director”, to reflect the ORA program alignment. In addition, we have made grammatical changes and minor conforming amendments as necessary to accommodate the new terminology.

We are making these technical amendments to revise descriptions of the FDA officials designated to preside over administrative appeals and at informal hearings on appeal, among other things. The amendments are technical and editorial in nature and should not be construed as modifying any substantive standards.

Publication of this document constitutes final action of these changes under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553). Section 553 of the APA exempts “rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice” from proposed rulemaking ( i.e., notice and comment rulemaking). 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). Rules are also exempt when an Agency finds “good cause” that notice and comment rulemaking procedures would be “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).

FDA has determined that this rulemaking meets the notice and comment exemption requirements in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A) and (b)(3)(B). FDA's revisions relate solely to FDA's change in organizational structure and make only minor technical non-substantive changes that pertain solely to the designation of FDA officials, and do not alter any substantive standard. FDA does not believe public comment is necessary for these minor revisions.

The APA allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication as “provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule” (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)). A delayed effective date is unnecessary in this case because the amendments do not impose or alter any substantive requirements on affected parties. As a result, affected parties do not need time to prepare before the rule takes effect. Therefore, FDA finds good cause for the amendments to become effective on the date of publication of this action.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Food and Drug Administration amends 21 CFR chapter I as set forth below:

Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.

On October 24, 2019 (84 FR 56961), the EPA proposed to approve the following rules into the California SIP.

Collectively, these submitted rules establish the NSR requirements for minor stationary sources under the SBAPCD's jurisdiction in California. We proposed to approve these rules because we determined they complied with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action contains more information on the submitted rules and our evaluation.

The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. We received two comments during this public comment period. Both comments were supportive of the proposed action, and expressed support for further measures to protect air and water quality. The EPA acknowledges the comments and the support expressed by the commenters.

No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the rules as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is approving these rules into the California SIP as proposed.

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District rules described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

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

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

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 26, 2020. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

Table of Contents I. Background II. Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Regulations III. Final Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

Section 111(d) of the CAA establishes standards of performance for existing sources, specifically pertaining to the remaining useful life of a source. Air pollutants included under this section are those which have not already been established as air quality criteria pollutants via 42 U.S.C. 7408(a) or hazardous air pollutants via 42 U.S.C. 7412. Section 111(d)(1) requires states to submit to the EPA for approval a plan that establishes standards of performance. The plan must provide that the state will implement and enforce the standards of performance. A federal plan is prescribed if a state does not submit a state-specific plan or the submitted plan is disapproved. If a state has no designated facilities for a standards of performance source category, it may submit a negative declaration in lieu of a state plan for that source category according to 40 CFR 60.23a(b) and 62.06.

A municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill is defined in 40 CFR 60.41f as, “an entire disposal facility in a contiguous geographical space where household waste is placed in or on land.” Other substances may be placed in the landfill which are regulated under RCRA Subtitle D, 40 CFR 257.2. MSW landfills emit gases generated by the decomposition of organic compounds or evolution of new organic compounds from the deposited waste. The EPA regulations specifically delineate measures to control methane and nonmethane organic compound (NMOC) emissions, which can adversely impact public health.

Standards of Performance for new MSW landfills, as codified at 40 CFR part 60 subpart XXX (subpart XXX), set standards for air emissions, operating standards for collection and control systems, test methods and procedures, compliance provisions, monitoring of operations, reporting requirements, recordkeeping requirements, and specifications for active collection systems. Subpart XXX applies to facilities that commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification after July 17, 2014. The Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, as codified at 40 CFR part 60 subpart Cf (subpart Cf, or Emission Guidelines) apply to states with MSW landfills that accepted waste after November 8, 1987 and commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification before July 17, 2014. Such landfills are considered to be “existing” landfills. In states with facilities meeting the applicability criteria of an existing MSW landfill, the Administrator of an air quality program must submit a state plan to the EPA that implements the Emission Guidelines.

The Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (VT DEC) has determined that there is only one MSW landfill (a “new” landfill) in the State subject to federal Clean Air Act landfill regulations pursuant to part 60 subpart XXX. The landfill, New England Waste Services of Vermont, Inc. of Coventry, Vermont, commenced construction on an expansion to its design capacity on August 19, 2019, and is thus currently regulated under Subpart XXX. Therefore, the VT DEC submitted a negative declaration to EPA on September 10, 2019 pursuant to the requirements at 40 CFR 60.23a(b) and 62.06, certifying that there are no existing source MSW landfills in the State of Vermont subject to the requirements of 40 CFR part 60 subpart Cf.

The EPA is approving the Vermont negative declaration. This negative declaration satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 60.23a(b) and 62.06, serving in lieu of a CAA 111(d) state plan for existing source MSW landfills.

The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, the EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the negative declaration should relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective May 26, 2020 without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant adverse comments by April 23, 2020.

If the EPA receives such comments, we will publish a notice withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. All parties interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on May 26, 2020 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comments on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of adverse comments.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a 111(d) plan submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations (40 CFR 62.04). Thus, in reviewing 111(d) plan submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

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

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, this rule is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 26, 2020. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (See section 307(b)(2)).

Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of this issue of the Federal Register , rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that the EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address comment(s) in the final rulemaking.

Part 62 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

The IFR is organized as follows:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is amending the regulations that implement section 362 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, 42 U.S.C. 265, as part of its response to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Section 362 provides that if the Secretary  1 “determines that by reason of the existence of any communicable disease in a foreign country there is serious danger of the introduction of such disease into the United States, and that this danger is so increased by the introduction of persons or property from such country that a suspension of the right to introduce such persons and property is required in the interest of the public health,” he has the authority, in accordance with regulations approved by the President, 2 “to prohibit, in whole or in part, the introduction of persons and property from such countries or places as he shall designate in order to avert such danger, and for such period of time as he may deem necessary for such purpose.” PHS Act 362, 42 U.S.C. 265. Pursuant to a delegation of the Secretary's authority, the CDC Director has promulgated regulations under section 362 to suspend the introduction of property into the United States. Current regulations, however, only address suspension of the introduction of property into the United States and the procedures to quarantine or isolate persons. That is, current regulations permit CDC to quarantine or isolate persons entering the United States, but they do not address the suspension of the introduction of persons into the United States under section 362.

CDC's experience with COVID-19 is that, under some circumstances, quarantine or isolation is not a viable solution for protecting the public health from the introduction of a communicable disease from another country. For example, the arrival in U.S. ports of cruise ships with numerous passengers requiring quarantine or isolation has presented complex logistical challenges, consumed disproportionate agency resources, and taken CDC personnel away from other critical parts of the domestic and international response to COVID-19. To continue to respond promptly and effectively to the public health emergency presented by COVID-19, CDC needs a more efficient regulatory mechanism to exercise its section 362 authority and suspend the introduction of persons who would otherwise pose a serious danger of introduction of COVID-19 into the United States.

Even though COVID-19 is present in certain locations within the United States, the suspension of the introduction of persons into the United States may be required in the interest of public health to avert the danger of further introduction of the disease into the same or other locations in the United States. For example, hypothetically, the introduction of COVID-19 into the United States would occur if two infected persons disembarked in a large metropolitan city in the Midwest from an international flight. Another vector for further introduction of COVID-19 into the United States would be a group of two infected persons who entered that Midwestern state by land after crossing the border from Canada. Suspension of the introduction of those two persons into the United States at the land border would mitigate the serious and increased danger of further introduction of COVID-19 in the United States. The same public health analysis would apply if two infected persons walked across the land border from Canada into a Northeastern State.

International travel and migration play a significant role in the global transmission of infectious biological agents or their toxic products that pose risks for vulnerable populations. 3 Travelers can serve as unwitting vectors of disease, and thereby increase the risk of communicable disease transmission and of the introduction of communicable disease into the United States. The risk increases when travelers are in congregate settings, such as carriers ( i.e., ships, aircraft, trains, and road vehicles) or terminals with shared sitting, sleeping, eating, or recreational areas, all of which are conducive to disease transmission. 4

The speed and far reach of global travel were factors in prior outbreaks that expanded to numerous continents. Examples include: The H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009; severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARs) coronavirus in 2003; tuberculosis; measles; Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS-CoV) in 2012; and Ebola Virus Disease in 2014 and 2018. 5 All of these high-consequence diseases posed significant public health risks, especially given the compressed timeframes in which the outbreaks occurred.

For example, the Federal response to the H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009 would have benefitted from the availability of an efficient mechanism for suspending the introduction of persons into the United States. The initial cases of H1N1 occurred in Mexico, before the first confirmed cases in the United States. Retrospective research findings in Mexico indicated that transmission of the virus in Mexico involved person-to-person spread with multiple generations of transmission. 6

Like 2009 H1N1, COVID-19 is a pandemic. But the new coronavirus is more infectious than 2009 H1N1. 7 Indeed, it appears that the virus may at times be transmitted by persons who are asymptomatic. As discussed below, COVID-19 is also more likely to cause death in high-risk individuals.

In addition, global travel has increased dramatically since prior infectious disease outbreaks. By 2018, international visitations to the U.S. totaled over 20 million more per year than in 2009, when the 2009 H1N1 pandemic occurred, and 10 million more per year than in 2014, when the Ebola Virus Disease outbreak occurred. 8 These differences make the availability of an efficient mechanism for exercising the section 362 authority all the more important to the protection of the public health going forward.

COVID-19 is a communicable disease caused by a novel (new) coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, that was first identified as the cause of an outbreak of respiratory illness that began in Wuhan, Hubei Province, People's Republic of China (“PRC”). The virus is thought to be transmitted primarily by person-to-person contact through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs or sneezes. It may also be transmitted through contact with surfaces or objects. While much is still unknown about the transmission of COVID-19, asymptomatic transmission may also occur.

Manifestations of severe disease have included severe pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), septic shock, and multi-organ failure. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), as of March 17, 2020, approximately 4.1% of reported COVID-19 cases have resulted in death globally. This mortality rate is higher among seniors or those with compromised immune systems. Older adults and people who have severe chronic medical conditions like hypertension, heart, lung, or kidney disease are also at higher risk for more serious COVID-19 illness. Early data suggest older people are twice as likely to have serious COVID-19 illness.

As of March 17, 2020, there were over 179,100 cases of COVID-19 globally in over 150 locations (including countries), resulting in over 7,425 deaths; more than 4,225 cases have been identified in the United States, with new cases being reported daily and with at least 75 deaths due to the disease. Continued introduction into the United States of persons from foreign countries where COVID-19 exists presents a danger of disease transmission in congregate settings such as carriers or terminals, which may, in turn, result in a danger of disease transmission in contiguous areas. 9

Unfortunately, at this time, there is no vaccine that can prevent infection with COVID-19, nor are there therapeutics for those who become infected. Treatment is currently limited to supportive (or palliative) care to manage symptoms while the body fights off the disease. Hospitalization may be required in severe cases and mechanical respiratory support may be needed in the most severe cases. The ease of COVID-19 transmission presents a risk of a surge in hospitalizations for COVID-19, which would limit hospital capacity available to treat other serious conditions.

Testing is available to confirm suspected cases of COVID-19 infection. Testing generally requires specimens collected from the nose, throat, or lungs; such specimens can only be analyzed in a laboratory setting. However, commercial test results are typically available within three to four days. Currently, the time required to obtain test results—coupled with the incubation period of the disease—makes it impracticable to confirm whether each person moving into the United States is infected with COVID-19 at the time of the movement. Widespread, compulsory Federal quarantines or isolations of such persons pending test results are impracticable due to the numbers of persons involved, logistical challenges, and CDC resource and personnel constraints.

On January 30, 2020, the Director General of WHO declared that the outbreak of COVID-19 is a Public Health Emergency of International Concern under the International Health Regulations. 10 The following day, the Secretary of HHS declared COVID-19 a public health emergency under the PHS Act. 11 On March 11, 2020, the WHO declared COVID-19 a pandemic. On March 13, 2020, the President issued a Proclamation on Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Outbreak. 12 As of March 16, 2020, all 50 states and several local and territorial jurisdictions declared states of emergency.

Global efforts to slow disease transmission have included sweeping measures to limit travel and exposure to COVID-19. A number of countries, such as Russia, Australia, the Philippines, Japan, and Israel, have imposed stringent restrictions on travelers who have recently been to the PRC. On March 17, 2020, the European Union approved a plan to ban all nonessential travel into its bloc for a minimum of 30 days. Many countries are asking persons to self-quarantine for 14 days (a period estimated to encompass the incubation period for the disease) following return from foreign countries or places with sustained community transmission.

The President has exercised his authority in section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), to suspend entry into the United States of certain foreign nationals who have recently visited PRC (excluding the Special Administrative Regions of Hong Kong and Macau), the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Schengen Area (comprised of 26 countries in Europe), the United Kingdom (excluding overseas territories outside of Europe), and the Republic of Ireland, within 14 days preceding their entry or attempted entry into the United States due to concerns of person-to-person transmission of COVID-19. CDC has issued Level 3 Travel Health Notices recommending that travelers avoid all nonessential travel to PRC (excluding the Special Administrative Regions of Hong Kong and Macau), the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Republic of Korea, and the Schengen Area. The U.S. Department of State has issued a Global Level 3 Health Advisory directing U.S. citizens to reconsider all travel abroad due to the global impact of COVID-19 and Level 4 Travel Advisories (Do Not Travel) for PRC (excluding the Special Administrative Regions of Hong Kong and Macau), Iran, and certain regions of Italy. In addition, CDC has recommended that travelers, particularly those with underlying health conditions, avoid all cruise ship travel worldwide. The U.S. Department of State has similarly issued guidance that U.S. citizens should not travel by cruise ship at this time. On March 16, 2020, the Federal government announced guidelines recommending that the public should avoid discretionary travel; discretionary shopping trips; social visits; gatherings in groups of more than 10 people; and eating or drinking at bars, restaurants, and food courts. Numerous States and cities have gone further and shut down restaurants, bars, nightclubs, and theaters. On March 18, 2020, the United States and Canada announced plans to, by mutual consent, close the U.S.-Canadian border to nonessential travel.

The COVID-19 pandemic highlights why CDC needs an efficient regulatory mechanism to suspend the introduction of persons who would otherwise increase the serious danger of the introduction of a communicable disease into the United States. Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) applies to the “entry” of aliens, but section 362 instead provides the authority to prohibit the “introduction” of persons into the United States. Despite the unprecedented global efforts at mitigating or slowing the transmission of COVID-19, cases of COVID-19 have rapidly propagated and multiplied, crossing international borders with ease. As of March 17, 2020, CDC reported that 229 of the confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the United States with an established source of exposure were travel-related as opposed to community transmission, accounting for almost half of the 474 cases with an established source of exposure; another 3,752 cases remain under investigation. As of March 14, 2020, travelers from Japan have exported at least 20 COVID-19 cases to eight countries. As of March 14, 2020, travelers from the Islamic Republic of Iran have exported at least 145 COVID-19 cases to 17 other countries, as reported by the WHO, and travelers from the Schengen Area have exported 624 COVID-19 cases to 70 countries, including to the United States. In the near future, persons traveling from other foreign countries and jurisdictions may compound the serious danger of further introduction of COVID-19 into the United States.

To summarize, CDC knows that COVID-19 infection transmits easily, spreads quickly through global travel, and can have a high mortality rate for some of the most vulnerable members of society. At this time, there is no vaccine, therapeutic, or rapid testing for the disease. CDC needs a robust, efficient mechanism for exercising its authority under section 362 and other applicable authorities to suspend the introduction of persons into the United States, should the public health require it. In issuing orders pursuant to this interim final rule, CDC would coordinate with the Secretary of State in order to ensure compliance with the international legal obligations of the United States and to take due account of U.S. national and security interests.

Beyond the current COVID-19 pandemic, the suspension authority is also critical to CDC because there is always a risk of another emerging, or re-emerging, communicable disease that may harm the American public. One such risk is pandemic influenza (as opposed to seasonal influenza), which occurs when a novel, or new, influenza virus strain spreads over a wide geographic area and affects an exceptionally high proportion of the population. In such circumstances, the strain of virus is new, there is usually no available vaccine, and humans do not typically have immunity to the virus, often resulting in a more severe illness. The severity and unpredictable nature of an influenza pandemic requires public health systems to prepare constantly for the next occurrence. Whenever a new strain of influenza virus appears, or a major change to a preexisting virus occurs, individuals may have little or no immunity, which can lead to a pandemic when the virus passes easily from human to human and causes serious illness or death. The most recent influenza pandemics include H1N1 in 2009-2010, the 1968-1969 Hong Kong Flu, the 1957-1958 Asian Flu, and the 1918-1919 Spanish Flu.

It is difficult to predict the impact that another emerging, or re-emerging, communicable disease would have on the U.S. public health system. The 2009 H1N1 pandemic caused between 100,000 and 600,000 deaths worldwide, 13 while the 1918-1919 Spanish Flu was estimated to have caused over 50 million deaths worldwide. 14 Although advances in health care quality have greatly improved since 1918, the dramatic increases in global mobility in the 21st century have increased the rate at which a communicable disease can spread. Modern pandemics, spread through international travel, can engulf the world in three months or less. Moreover, pandemics can last from 12 to 18 months and are not considered one-time events.

The introduction of another emerging, or re-emerging, communicable disease into the United States is always a risk. The PHS Act section 362 suspension authority would be critical to any effort by CDC and its Federal, State, and local partners to contain or mitigate the risk. CDC expects to mitigate the risk in the future by issuing a Final Rule, after considering comments, to implement a permanent regulatory structure regarding the potential suspension of introduction of persons into the United States in the event a serious danger of the introduction of communicable disease arises in the future.

The primary legal authority supporting this rulemaking is section 362 of the PHS Act, which is codified at 42 U.S.C. 265. Under section 362, the Secretary  15 has the authority—if he were to determine that the existence of a communicable disease in a foreign country creates a serious danger of the introduction of such disease into the United States, and that this danger is increased by the introduction of persons or property from such country such that suspension of introduction is necessary to protect the public health—to suspend, in accordance with regulations approved by the President, 16 such introduction for determined periods of time.

In addition to section 362, other sections of the PHS Act are relevant to this rulemaking, including section 311, 42 U.S.C. 243; section 361, 42 U.S.C. 264; section 365, 42 U.S.C. 268; and section 367, 42 U.S.C. 270. Section 311 authorizes the Secretary to accept State and local assistance in the enforcement of quarantine rules and regulations and to assist States and their political subdivisions in the control of communicable diseases. Section 361 authorizes the Secretary to make and enforce such regulations that in the Secretary's judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the United States. It also permits the “apprehension, detention, or conditional release of individuals” in order to prevent the “introduction, transmission, or spread” of such communicable diseases as may be specified from time to time in Executive Orders of the President upon the recommendation of the Secretary, in consultation with the Surgeon General. Section 365 provides that it shall be the duty of designated customs officers and of Coast Guard officers to aid in the enforcement of quarantine rules and regulations. 17 Section 367 authorizes the application of certain sections of the PHS Act and promulgated regulations (including penalties and forfeitures for violations of such sections and regulations) to air navigation and aircraft to such extent and upon such conditions as deemed necessary for safeguarding public health. 18

This interim final rule will implement section 362 and other applicable provisions of the PHS Act to enable the CDC Director to suspend the introduction of persons into the United States consistent with the statute and applicable law.

Section 71.40(a) sets forth the statutory requirements for the CDC Director to suspend the introduction of persons into the United States. The provision establishes that the CDC Director may prohibit the introduction into the United States of persons from designated foreign countries (or one or more political subdivisions and regions thereof) or places, only for such period of time that the Director deems necessary for the public health, by issuing an order in which the Director determines that:

(1) By reason of the existence of any communicable disease in a foreign country (or one or more political subdivisions or regions thereof) or place, there is serious danger of the introduction of such communicable disease into the United States, and

(2) This danger is so increased by the introduction of persons from such country (or one or more political subdivisions or regions thereof) or place that a suspension of the introduction of such persons into the United States is required in the interest of the public health.

Section 71.40(b) sets forth definitions of several terms used in § 71.40. CDC defines the “introduction into the United States of persons” from a foreign country (or one or more political subdivisions or regions thereof) or place” as the movement of a person from a foreign country (or one or more political subdivisions or regions thereof) or a place, or series of foreign countries or places, into the United States so as to bring the person into contact with others in the United States, or so as to cause the contamination of property in the United States, in a manner that the Director determines to present a risk of transmission of the communicable disease to persons or property, even if the communicable disease has already been introduced, transmitted, or is spreading within the United States.

Section 362 refers to the “introduction of persons” from foreign countries. CDC defines “introduction into the United States of persons” from a foreign country (including one or more political subdivisions or regions thereof) or place to clarify that “introduction” can encompass those who have physically crossed a border of the United States and are in the process of moving into the interior in a manner the Director determines to present a risk of transmission of a communicable disease. This additional mechanism to halt the travel of such persons and rapidly moving them outside the United States constitutes preventing their “introduction” into the United States for purposes of § 71.40.

Similarly, Section 362 refers to the “introduction of [a communicable disease] into the United States.” CDC defines “serious danger of the introduction of such communicable disease into the United States” to mean the potential for introduction of vectors of the communicable disease into the United States, even if persons or property in the United States are already infected or contaminated with the communicable disease. CDC establishes this definition to clarify that, even if persons or property ( e.g. animals) in the United States are already infected or contaminated with a communicable disease in some localities, the potential for introduction of additional vectors that would introduce, transmit, or spread the disease in the same or different localities can present a serious danger of the introduction of the disease into the United States. Suspension of the introduction of persons into the United States may be required, in the interest of public health, to avert the increased danger that results from further introduction, transmission, or spread of the disease within the United States.

Finally, for purposes of this section, CDC defines the term “place” to include any location specified by the Director, including any carrier, whatever the carrier's nationality. CDC does this in order to remove all doubt that when this interim final rule refers to “place,” it refers not just to territory within or outside of a country, but also to carriers, as that term is defined in 42 CFR 71.1, whatever the carrier's nationality.

CDC will establish the requirement to suspend the introduction of persons into the United States from certain designated places for certain periods of time by means of an order executed by the CDC Director. In § 71.40(c), CDC describes the required contents of such order. In any § 71.40 order, the CDC Director must designate:

• The foreign countries (or one or more designated political subdivisions or regions thereof) or places from which the introduction of persons is being suspended.

• The period of time or circumstances under which the introduction of any persons or class of persons into the United States is being suspended.

• The conditions under which that prohibition on introduction should be effective in whole or in part, including any relevant exceptions that the CDC Director determines are appropriate.

CDC might at times rely on (1) State and local authorities who agree to help implement orders issued pursuant to § 71.40, or (2) other Federal agencies to implement and execute the orders issued under this section. Accordingly, in § 71.40(d), CDC establishes that, before issuing any § 71.40 order, CDC may coordinate with the appropriate State and local authorities or other Federal agency (or agencies). If the order will be implemented in whole or in part by State and local authorities under 42 U.S.C. 243(a), the Director's order may explain the procedures and standards by which those State or local authorities are expected to aid in the order's enforcement. Similarly, if the order will be implemented in whole or in part by designated customs officers (including officers of the Department of Homeland Security with U.S. Customs and Border Protection who exercise the authorities of customs officers) or the United States Coast Guard under 42 U.S.C. 268(b), or another Federal department or agency, the CDC Director, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security or the head of the other applicable department or agency, shall explain in the order the procedures and standards by which any authorities or officers or agents are expected to aid in the enforcement of the order, to the extent that they are permitted to do so under their existing legal authorities.

Section 71.40(e) provides that this section does not apply to members of the armed forces of the United States and associated personnel for whom the Secretary of Defense provides assurance to the Director that the Secretary of Defense, through measures such as quarantine, isolation, or other measures maintaining control over such individuals, is preventing the risk of transmission of a communicable disease to persons or property in the United States. CDC includes this exception because the Secretary of Defense has authority and means to prevent the introduction of a communicable disease into the United States from his personnel returning from foreign countries. Therefore, this interim final rule need not apply to Department of Defense personnel.

Although section 362 applies to “persons,” this interim final rule will not apply to U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. Congress provided CDC with the authority to prohibit the introduction of persons who would increase a serious danger of introducing into the United States a communicable disease, when required in the interest of the public health. CDC believes that, at present, quarantine, isolation, and conditional release, in combination with other authorities, while not perfect solutions, can mitigate any transmission or spread of COVID-19 caused by the introduction of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents into the United States. Section 71.40(f) therefore explains that this interim final rule shall not apply to U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. Determining the appropriate protections for U.S. citizens and lawful permanent aliens requires a complex balancing of numerous interests and would benefit from additional consideration and public comment. HHS does not want such concerns to delay the issuance of this interim final rule, which would enable the CDC Director to issue orders that would have the effect of slowing the introduction, transmission, and spread of COVID-19 in the United States.

Agency rulemaking is governed by section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553). Section 553(b) requires that, unless the rule falls within one of the enumerated exemptions, HHS must publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register that provides interested persons an opportunity to submit written data, views, or arguments, prior to finalization of regulatory requirements. Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the APA authorizes a department or agency to dispense with the prior notice and opportunity for public comment requirement when the agency, for “good cause,” finds that notice and public comment thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. In addition, because this interim final rule represents a critical part of the dialogue between the United States and the Governments of Mexico and Canada in preventing the spread of COVID-19 along our shared borders, it involves a “foreign affairs function of the United States.” 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).

As noted above, the United States and numerous other countries have taken unprecedented measures to try to contain or slow the transmission or spread of COVID-19. Such public health actions, especially the actions by the President and the Secretary, have slowed the introduction and transmission of the disease into the United States, which has benefitted the public health, preserved limited public and private resources, and given the U.S. public health system additional time to implement further measures to protect and support the public.

Nevertheless, these measures have not completely stopped global travelers, and other persons crossing from one country into another country, from spreading COVID-19 across national boundaries and around the globe. The introduction of persons from foreign countries with COVID-19 outbreaks is continuing to cause the introduction of COVID-19 into disparate locations within the United States. The suspension authority is therefore critical to slowing the introduction of COVID-19 into such disparate locations within the United States. The United States is in a phase where suspending the introduction of persons from certain countries or places may be required in the interest of the public health, because it could still materially reduce the transmission and spread of COVID-19 in the United States. Because persons can have COVID-19 and be asymptomatic at the time of introduction into the United States, and because the completion of testing for COVID-19 may take three to four days, it is impracticable to confirm who is infected with COVID-19 and who is not infected with COVID-19 as persons move into the United States. Similarly, Federal quarantines or isolations of all such persons pending test results would be impracticable due to the numbers of persons involved, logistical challenges, and CDC resource and personnel constraints.

In addition, whereas section 212(f) of the INA applies to the “entry” of aliens, section 362 applies to the “introduction” of persons into the United States. Therefore, although 212(f) has been effective in slowing the transmission or spread of COVID-19 in the United States, section 362 provides CDC with a mechanism tied specifically to persons who increase the danger of introducing COVID-19 into the United States.

Given the national emergency caused by COVID-19, it would be impracticable and contrary to the public health—and, by extension, the public interest—to delay these implementing regulations until a full public notice-and-comment process is completed.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), and for the reasons stated above, HHS therefore concludes that there is good cause to dispense with prior public notice and the opportunity to comment on this rule before finalizing this rule. For the same reasons, HHS has determined, consistent with section 553(d) of the APA, that there is good cause to make this interim final rule effective immediately upon filing at the Office of the Federal Register.

HHS requests comment on all aspects of this interim final rule, including its likely costs and benefits and the impacts that it is likely to have on the public health, as compared to the current requirements under 42 CFR part 71.

Executive Orders 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, and public health and safety effects; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action that is likely to result in a regulation (1) having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more in any one year, or adversely and materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities (also referred to as “economically significant”); (2) creating a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. This interim final rule is economically significant for the purposes of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. CDC, however, is proceeding under the emergency provision at Executive Order 12866 Section 6(a)(3)(D) based on the need to move expeditiously during the current public health emergency to limit the number of new cases of COVID-19.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires that when an agency issues a proposed rule, or a final rule pursuant to section 553(b) of the APA or another law, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis that meets the requirements of the RFA and publish such analysis in the Federal Register . 5 U.S.C. 603, 604. Specifically, the RFA normally requires agencies to describe the impact of a rulemaking on small entities by providing a regulatory impact analysis. Such analysis must address the consideration of regulatory options that would lessen the economic effect of the rule on small entities. The RFA defines a “small entity” as (1) a proprietary firm meeting the size standards of the Small Business Administration (SBA); (2) a nonprofit organization that is not dominant in its field; or (3) a small government jurisdiction with a population of less than 50,000. 5 U.S.C. 601(3)-(6). Except for such small government jurisdictions, neither State nor local governments are “small entities.” Similarly, for purposes of the RFA, individual persons are not small entities. The requirement to conduct a regulatory impact analysis does not apply if the head of the agency “certifies that the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 605(b). The agency must, however, publish the certification in the Federal Register at the time of publication of the rule, “along with a statement providing the factual basis for such certification.” Id. If the agency head has not waived the requirements for a regulatory flexibility analysis in accordance with the RFA's waiver provision, and no other RFA exception applies, the agency must prepare the regulatory flexibility analysis and publish it in the Federal Register at the time of promulgation or, if the rule is promulgated in response to an emergency that makes timely compliance impracticable, within 180 days of publication of the final rule. 5 U.S.C. 604(a), 608(b). 19

This interim final rule establishes a regulatory mechanism for the exercise of the PHS Act section 362 suspension authority, which directly applies against persons and not State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector. Accordingly, HHS and CDC believe that this interim final rule would likely impact only persons, and that it would, therefore, not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In addition, for the reasons set forth in this document pertaining to the COVID-19 outbreak, the Secretary finds that this interim final rule is being promulgated in response to an emergency that makes timely compliance with the provisions of section 604 impracticable. CDC will assess the potential impacts—including economic effects—of this action on all small entities. Based on that assessment, the Secretary will either certify that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities or publish a final regulatory flexibility analysis.

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Unfunded Mandates Act) (2 U.S.C. 1532) requires that covered agencies prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. Currently, that threshold is approximately $154 million. If a budgetary impact statement is required, section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act also requires covered agencies to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before promulgating a rule. HHS has determined that this interim final rule is not expected to result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, or by the private sector, of $154 million or more in any one year because it only establishes a regulatory mechanism for the exercise of the PHS Act section 362 suspension authority, which applies against persons and not State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector. Accordingly, HHS has not prepared a budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed the regulatory alternatives considered.

HHS has determined that the amendments to 42 CFR part 71 will not have a significant impact on the human environment.

HHS has reviewed this rule under Executive Order 12988 on Civil Justice Reform and has determined that this interim final rule meets the standard in the Executive Order.

This interim final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13132, Federalism. Under 42 U.S.C. 264(e), Federal public health regulations do not preempt State or local public health regulations, except in the event of a conflict with the exercise of Federal authority. Other than to restate this statutory provision, this rulemaking does not alter the relationship between the Federal government and State/local governments as set forth in 42 U.S.C. 264. The longstanding provision on preemption in the event of a conflict with Federal authority (42 CFR 70.2) is left unchanged by this rulemaking. Furthermore, there are no provisions in this regulation that impose direct compliance costs on State and local governments. Therefore, HHS believes that the interim final rule does not warrant additional analysis under Executive Order 13132.

Under the Plain Language Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274, October 13, 2010), executive Departments and Agencies are required to use plain language in documents that explain to the public how to comply with a requirement the Federal Government administers or enforces. HHS/CDC has attempted to use plain language in promulgating this interim final rule, consistent with the Federal Plain Writing Act guidelines.

The Congressional Review Act defines a “major rule” as “any rule that the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of the Office of Management and Budget finds has resulted in or is likely to result in—(A) an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; (B) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or (C) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.” 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this interim final rule is a major rule for purposes of the Congressional Review Act. As this rule is promulgated under the “good cause” exemption of the Administrative Procedure Act, there is not a delay in its effective date under the Congressional Review Act.

Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999 requires Federal departments and agencies to determine whether a proposed policy or regulation could affect family well-being. If the determination is affirmative, then the Department or agency must prepare an impact assessment to address criteria specified in the law. HHS has determined that this interim final rule will not have an impact on family well-being, as defined in the Act.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Ch. 3506; 5 CFR 1320 Appendix A.1), HHS has reviewed this interim final rule and has determined that there are no new collections of information contained therein.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Health and Human Services, on behalf of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, amends 42 CFR part 71 as follows:

The CDC Director (Director) has issued an Order pursuant to section 362 of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 265. The Order suspends the introduction of certain persons into the United States because the Director has determined that the existence of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in certain foreign countries creates a serious danger of the introduction of the disease into the United States, and the danger is so increased by the introduction of persons from the foreign countries that a temporary suspension of the introduction of such persons is necessary to protect the public health. The Order is posted on the website for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It will be submitted to the Federal Register for publication.

The Order does not apply to U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, persons from foreign countries who hold valid travel documents, or persons from foreign countries in the visa waiver program who are not subject to travel restrictions.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is implementing the Order. The Order also does not apply where a designated customs officer of DHS determines, based on the totality of the circumstances, including consideration of significant law enforcement, officer and public safety, humanitarian, and public health interests, that the Order should not be applied to a specific person otherwise subject to the order.

Finally, the Order does not apply to members of the armed forces of the United States and associated personnel for whom the Secretary of Defense provides assurance to the Director that the Secretary of Defense, through measures such as quarantine, isolation, or other measures for maintaining control over such individuals, is preventing the risk of transmission of COVID-19 to others in the United States.

This document announces that OMB approved the information collection requirements in §§ 25.701, 73.3526, 73.3527, 76.64, and 76.66(d) on February 27, 2020. These rules were modified in the 2019 CEN Order, FCC 19-69, published at 84 FR 45659 on August 30, 2019. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the compliance date of the rules. The other rule amendments adopted in the 2019 CEN Order, which did not require OMB approval, required compliance as of October 29, 2019.

If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554, regarding OMB Control Numbers 3060-0214, 3060-0844, 3060-0980, and 3060-1065. Please include the applicable OMB Control Number in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via email at PRA@fcc.gov.

To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received final OMB approval on February 27, 2020, for the information collection requirements contained in the modifications to §§ 25.701, 73.3526, 73.3527, 76.64, and 76.66(d). Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.

No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Numbers for the information collection requirements in §§ 25.701, 73.3526, 73.3527, 76.64, and 76.66(d) are 3060-0214, 3060-0844, 3060-0980, and 3060-1065.

The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.

The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:

OMB Control Number: 3060-0214.

OMB Approval Date: February 27, 2020.

OMB Expiration Date: February 28, 2023.

Title: Sections 73.3526 and 73.3527, Local Public Inspection Files; Sections 73.1212, 76.1701 and 73.1943, Political Files.

Form Number: N/A.

Respondents: Business or other for profit entities; Not for profit institutions; State, Local or Tribal government; Individuals or households.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 23,984 respondents; 62,839 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1-52 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement, Recordkeeping requirement, Third party disclosure requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for these collections is contained in Sections 151, 152, 154(i), 303, 307 and 308 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 2,043,805 hours.

Total Annual Cost: None.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: The Commission prepared a system of records notice (SORN), FCC/MB-2, “Broadcast Station Public Inspection Files,” that covers the PII contained in the broadcast station public inspection files located on the Commission's website. The Commission will revise appropriate privacy requirements as necessary to include any entities and information added to the online public file in this proceeding.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Most of the documents comprising the public file consist of materials that are not of a confidential nature. Respondents complying with the information collection requirements may request that the information they submit be withheld from disclosure. If confidentiality is requested, such requests will be processed in accordance with the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.459.

In addition, the Commission has adopted provisions that permit respondents subject to the information collection requirement for Shared Service Agreements to redact confidential or proprietary information from their disclosures.

Needs and Uses: In 2019, the Commission adopted new rules governing the delivery and form of carriage election notices. Electronic Delivery of MVPD Communications, Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative, MB Docket Nos. 17-105, 17-317, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 19-69, 2019 WL 3065517 (rel. Jul. 11, 2019). Pursuant to that decision, the public file obligations of full power television broadcasters were slightly modified, although the resulting burdens will be unchanged. The modified information collection requirements are as follows:

47 CFR 73.3526(e)(15) requires that records be retained for the duration of the three-year election period. Commercial television stations must provide an up-to-date email address and phone number for carriage-related questions and respond as soon as is reasonably possible to messages or calls from MVPDs no later than July 31, 2020. Each commercial television station is responsible for the continuing accuracy and completeness of the information furnished.

47 CFR 73.3527(e)(12) requires that noncommercial television stations shall provide an up-to-date email address and phone number for carriage-related questions and respond as soon as is reasonably possible to messages or calls from MVPDs no later than July 31 2020. For stations requesting mandatory carriage, a copy of the request must be placed in its public file and shall retain both the request and relevant correspondence for the duration of any period to which the request applies.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0844.

OMB Approval Date: February 27, 2020.

OMB Expiration Date: February 28, 2023.

Title: Carriage of the Transmissions of Television Broadcast Stations: Section 76.56(a), Carriage of qualified noncommercial educational stations; Section 76.57, Channel positioning; Section 76.61(a)(1)-(2), Disputes concerning carriage; Section 76.64, Retransmission consent.

Form Number: N/A.

Respondents: Business or other for profit entities.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 4,872 respondents; 7,052 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.5-5 hours.

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

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained in Sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 325, 336, 614 and 615 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 4,471 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No cost.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

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

Needs and Uses: In 2019, the Commission adopted new rules governing the delivery and form of carriage election notices. Electronic Delivery of MVPD Communications, Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative, MB Docket Nos. 17-105, 17-317, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 19-69, 2019 WL 3065517 (rel. Jul. 11, 2019). Pursuant to that decision, the obligations of broadcasters and cable operators were slightly modified (see 47 CFR 76.64(h) below for the modified rule which requires review and approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)). Under 47 CFR 76.64 the information collection requirements are as follows:

Paragraph (h)(1): Television broadcast station shall place a copy of its election statement, and copies of any election change notices applying to the upcoming carriage cycle, in the station's public file on or before each must-carry/retransmission consent election deadline.

Paragraph (h)(2): Each cable operator must provide an up-to-date email address for carriage election notice submissions concerning its systems and an up-to-date phone number for carriage-related questions. Cable Operators must respond to questions from broadcasters as soon as is reasonably possible.

Paragraph (h)(3): Stations shall send a notice of its election to a cable operator if one or more of that operator's systems is changing its election. The notice shall be sent to the email address provided by the cable system and carbon copied to ElectionNotices@FCC.gov. A notice must include the following: The:

Call sign;

community of license;

DMA where the station is located;

specific change being made in election status;

email address for carriage-related questions;

phone number for carriage-related questions;

name of the appropriate station contact person; and,

if the station changes its election for some systems of the cable operator but not all, the specific cable systems for which a carriage election applies.

(h)(4): Cable operators must respond via email in a reasonable time period and also acknowledge receipt of a television station's election notice.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0980.

OMB Approval Date: February 27, 2020.

OMB Expiration Date: February 28, 2023.

Title: Implementation of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999: Local Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues and Retransmission Consent Issues, 47 CFR Section 76.66.

Form Number: N/A.

Respondents: Business or other for profit entities.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 3,410 respondents; 4,388 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.5-5 hours.

Frequency of Response: Third party disclosure requirement; On occasion reporting requirement; Once every three years reporting requirement; Recordkeeping requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 325, 338, 339 and 340.

Total Annual Burden: 3,576 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $24,000.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

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

Needs and Uses: In 2019, the Commission adopted new rules governing the delivery and form of carriage election notices. Electronic Delivery of MVPD Communications, Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative, MB Docket Nos. 17-105, 17-317, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 19-69, 2019 WL 3065517 (rel. Jul. 11, 2019). Pursuant to that decision, the public file obligations of DBS providers, and the notice requirements of broadcasters, were slightly modified. The rule modifications were made to 47 CFR 76.66(d)(1)(ii)-(vi) and 76.66(d)(3)(ii) as indicated above. These modifications need OMB review and approval. They are as follows:

47 CFR 76.66(d)(1)(ii) requires that DBS providers to place an up-to-date email address for carriage election notice submissions. An up-to-date phone number for carriage-related questions in their public file is also required. This information must be kept updated and a response to questions from broadcasters is required expeditiously.

47 CFR 76.66(d)(1)(iii) requires stations to send notice when changing an election. The notices must be sent to the email address provided by the satellite carrier and carbon copied to ElectionNotices@FCC.gov.

47 CFR 76.66(d)(1)(iv) requires that television station's written notification shall include the following:

(A) Call sign;

(B) community of license;

(C) DMA where the station is located;

(D) specific change being made in election status;

(E) email address for carriage-related questions;

(F) phone number for carriage-related questions; and

(G) name of the appropriate station contact person.

47 CFR 76.66(d)(1)(v) requires that a satellite carrier must respond via email as soon as is reasonably possible to acknowledging receipt of a television station's election notice.

47 CFR 76.66(d)(1)(vi) requires within 30 days of receiving a television station's carriage request, a satellite carrier shall notify in writing:

(A) Local television stations it will not carry, along with the reasons for such a decision; and

(B) Local television stations it intends to carry.

47 CFR 76.66(d)(3)(ii) requires that a new television station make its election request in writing. The notification must be sent to the satellite carrier's email address provided by the satellite carrier and carbon copied to ElectionNotices@FCC.gov between 60 days prior to commencing broadcasting and 30 days after commencing broadcasting. The information in paragraph (d)(1)(iv) must be contained in the written notification.

OMB Control Number: 3060-1065.

OMB Approval Date: February 27, 2020.

OMB Expiration Date: February 28, 2023.

Title: Section 25.701 of the Commission's Rules, Direct Broadcast Satellite Public Interest Obligations.

Form Number: N/A.

Respondents: Business or other for profit entities.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 2 respondents; 2 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1-10 hours.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement; on occasion reporting requirement; one time reporting requirement; annual reporting requirement; Third party disclosure requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority which covers this information collection is contained in Section 335 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 49 hours.

Total Annual Cost: None.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impacts.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Although the Commission does not believe that any confidential information will need to be disclosed in order to comply with the information collection requirements, applicants are free to request that materials or information submitted to the Commission be withheld from public inspection. (See 47 CFR 0.459).

Needs and Uses: In 2019, the Commission adopted new rules governing the delivery and form of carriage election notices. Electronic Delivery of MVPD Communications, Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative, MB Docket Nos. 17-105, 17-317, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 19-69, 2019 WL 3065517 (rel. Jul. 11, 2019). Pursuant to that decision, the public file obligations of DBS providers were slightly modified. Therefore, the following information collection requirement needs review and approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB):

47 CFR 25.701(f)(6)(i)(D) requires that each satellite carrier shall provide an up-to-date email address for carriage election notice submissions and an up-to-date phone number for carriage-related questions. Each satellite carrier is responsible for the continuing accuracy and completeness of the information furnished. The satellite carrier must respond to questions from broadcasters as soon as is reasonably possible.

The regulations at § 648.86(o) authorize the Regional Administrator to adjust the possession and trip limits for common pool vessels in order to help avoid overharvest or underharvest of the common pool quotas.

Based on most recent catch information, the common pool fishery has caught low amounts of the following species relative to the annual quotas for each of these stocks (Table 1): Georges Bank (GB) cod, Gulf of Maine (GOM) cod, GOM haddock, Cape Cod (CC)/GOM yellowtail flounder, American plaice, and witch flounder. At the current rate of fishing, we project that the common pool fishery will not fully harvest the annual quotas for these stocks by the end of the 2019 fishing year. Providing vessels an opportunity to possess and land greater amounts of catch should provide greater incentive to fish and more opportunity to catch available quota. Based on our review of past fishing effort, we project that increases in the possession and trip limit for these stocks should provide additional fishing opportunities and flexibility to catch available quota while ensuring that the common pool does not exceed its annual quotas.

Effective March 23, 2020, until April 30, 2020, NMFS increases the possession and trip limits summarized in Tables 2 and 3.

Weekly quota monitoring reports for the common pool fishery can be found on our website at: https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/ro/fso/reports/h/nemultispecies.html. We will continue to monitor common pool catch through vessel trip reports, dealer-reported landings, VMS catch reports, and other available information and, if necessary, we will make additional adjustments to common pool management measures.

This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment and the 30-day delayed effectiveness period because this action relieves possession and landing restrictions, and delayed implementation would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

The regulations at § 648.86(o) authorize the Regional Administrator to adjust the possession and trip limits for common pool vessels in order to help avoid overharvest or underharvest of the common pool quotas. The available analysis indicates that the increased possession and trip limit adjustments for these stocks should help the fishery achieve the optimum yields (OY) for each stock. Any delay in this action would limit the benefits to common pool vessels that the increased landing and possession limits are intended to provide.

The time necessary to provide for prior notice and comment, and a 30-day delay in effectiveness, would keep NMFS from implementing the necessary possession and trip limit before the end of the fishing year on April 30, 2020, which could prevent the fishery from achieving OY and cause negative economic impacts to the common pool fishery. This would undermine management objectives of the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan and cause unnecessary negative economic impacts to the common pool fishery. The public received prior notice and an opportunity to comment on the Regional Administrator's exercise of this authority. The fishing industry participants have experienced these adjustments and have become accustomed to this process. There is additional good cause to waive the delayed effective period because this action relieves restrictions on fishing vessels by increasing a trip limit.