I. Discussion A. Background

The Bureau recognizes the serious impact the COVID-19 pandemic is having on many consumers and on the operations of many entities, including those involved in the mortgage origination process, and the challenges of this unique and rapidly evolving situation.

The Bureau understands that the current crisis is causing temporary business disruptions and is creating challenges for some businesses involved in the mortgage origination process, including creditors, mortgage loan originators, settlement agents, and other parties such as real estate appraisers. The difficulties some businesses are facing include operational and staffing challenges in processing loan applications, estimating mortgage transaction costs, delivering disclosures, providing third party services relating to mortgage origination, and closing loans. The Bureau understands that these difficulties also are affecting some other entities, such as county recorders' offices, that provide information relating to the costs of mortgage transactions or otherwise play a role in the mortgage origination process.

The Bureau recognizes, furthermore, that due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, some consumers have an acute need for proceeds from mortgage transactions as well as uncertainty or confusion about the origination process. Some consumers are seeking to refinance their homes quickly to obtain funds to meet financial needs that are due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The timely good-faith estimates of mortgage transaction costs under the TRID Rule and the disclosures under the Regulation Z Rescission Rules along with their corresponding waiting periods, the provisions for which are described in more detail in part I.B, facilitate prudent consumer decision-making. Providing these estimates and disclosures along with their corresponding waiting periods under the general legal standards in these rules, however, may result in delay in the transactions of some consumers seeking to respond to emergency conditions. However, the TRID Rule and Regulation Z Rescission Rules include provisions intended to provide regulatory flexibility in certain circumstances. This interpretive rule is intended to spotlight and clarify these provisions for consumers and mortgage origination businesses so that they can take advantage of these provisions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The TRID Rule (which is codified in Regulation Z) and the Regulation Z Rescission Rules implement the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). 1 The TRID Rule imposes certain disclosure requirements and waiting periods related to mortgage transactions. 2 The Regulation Z Rescission Rules provide consumers with the right to rescind certain credit transactions secured by their principal dwelling. 3 The Regulation Z Rescission Rules also impose waiting periods.

In recent weeks, the Bureau has received a number of questions and requests for clarification from stakeholders, including creditors, industry representatives, and State regulators, about these provisions and their application in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. Given the challenges posed by the current crisis, the Bureau is issuing this interpretive rule to provide guidance to covered persons that must comply with the TRID Rule or the Regulation Z Rescission Rules. The Bureau continues to seek stakeholder feedback and evaluate whether the Bureau should provide any additional guidance about the application of the laws and regulations under the Bureau's purview pertaining to the mortgage origination process in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Under the TRID Rule, creditors generally must deliver or place in the mail the Loan Estimate to consumers no later than seven business days before consummation and consumers must receive the Closing Disclosure no later than three business days before consummation. 4 The Regulation Z Rescission Rules also provide consumers with at least three business days from consummation to rescind certain credit obligations secured by the consumer's principal dwelling, and creditors are required to provide consumers with a disclosure informing them of this rescission right. 5 Under the TRID Rule and the Regulation Z Rescission Rules, however, after receiving the required disclosure(s), a consumer may modify or waive these waiting periods if the consumer determines that he or she needs credit extended to meet a bona fide personal financial emergency. 6 For the waiting periods to be modified or waived, the creditor must have a dated written statement by the consumer that: (1) Describes the emergency, (2) specifically modifies or waives the waiting period, and (3) bears the signature of all consumers who are primarily liable on the legal obligation (for the TRID Rule) or who are entitled to rescind (for the Regulation Z Rescission Rules). 7 Commentary to the TRID Rule modification and waiver provisions clarifies that “[t]he consumer must have a bona fide personal financial emergency that necessitates consummating the credit transaction before the end of the waiting period.” The commentary also clarifies that whether these conditions are met is determined by the facts or circumstances of individual situations, and provides one example. 8 Commentary to the Regulation Z Rescission Rules waiver provision similarly clarifies that for a consumer to waive the rescission waiting period, “the consumer must have a bona fide personal financial emergency that must be met before the end of the rescission period.”  9

On September 14, 2018, the Bureau issued its “Statement on Supervisory Practices Regarding Financial Institutions and Consumers Affected by a Major Disaster or Emergency” (2018 Supervisory Statement). The 2018 Supervisory Statement explained that Regulation Z provides that consumers may waive or modify the timing requirements described above if necessary to meet a bona fide personal financial emergency and that this “regulatory flexibility can help expedite access to credit for consumers facing a bona fide personal financial emergency following a major disaster or emergency.”  10

The Bureau recognizes that a consumer's need to obtain funds due to the COVID-19 pandemic can similarly create a bona fide personal financial emergency. The Bureau is responding to stakeholders' questions and requests for clarification about the applicability of these provisions during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Bureau has determined to issue this interpretive rule to provide general guidance to stakeholders and other members of the public. Accordingly, the Bureau is clarifying that (1) if a consumer determines that the extension of credit is needed to meet a bona fide personal financial emergency, (2) the consumer's brief statement describing the emergency identifies a financial need that is due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and (3) the emergency necessitates consummating the credit transaction before the end of an applicable TRID Rule waiting period or must be met before the end of the Regulation Z Rescission Rules waiting period, then the consumer has a bona fide personal financial emergency that would permit the consumer to utilize the modification and waiver provisions, subject to the applicable procedures set forth in the TRID Rule and the Regulation Z Rescission Rules. 11

Regulation Z does not mandate that creditors inform consumers of their ability to use the modification and waiver provisions in the TRID Rule or the Regulation Z Rescission Rules if the consumer has a bona fide financial emergency. Some consumers may be unaware that these provisions may be available to them. Thus, the Bureau encourages creditors to consider voluntarily informing consumers during the COVID-19 pandemic of their ability to utilize the modification and waiver provisions for bona fide personal financial emergencies if the consumer has a need to obtain funds due to the COVID-19 pandemic prior to the end of an applicable waiting period.

Under the TRID Rule, creditors  12 must estimate in good faith the costs that consumers will incur in connection with their mortgage transaction and disclose them on the Loan Estimate. 13 For purposes of determining good faith under the TRID Rule, creditors may use revised estimates of such costs in a limited number of situations pursuant to Regulation Z, § 1026.19(e)(3)(iv). 14 One such situation is if there are “changed circumstances” that affect the settlement charges consumers would incur. 15 The TRID Rule specifies that changed circumstances includes “an extraordinary event beyond the control of any interested party,” with the commentary to the TRID Rule clarifying that a “war or natural disaster” is an example of such an extraordinary event. 16

Economic disruptions and shortages during the COVID-19 pandemic may affect the ability of stakeholders to provide accurate estimates of some settlement charges. Stakeholders have sought guidance from the Bureau as to whether the COVID-19 pandemic is an extraordinary event that permits creditors to provide consumers with revised estimates reflecting changes in settlement charges. For example, a stakeholder asked to clarify whether, for purposes of establishing good faith, a creditor could provide a revised estimate of the appraisal fee based on changed circumstances where (1) the amount disclosed on the Loan Estimate was based on a reasonable market price at the time of the estimate and (2) the actual appraisal fee was higher because of a shortage of available appraisers due to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Upon consideration of the interpretive issues, the Bureau concludes that, as with wars or natural disasters, the COVID-19 pandemic is an example of an extraordinary event beyond the control of any interested party, and thus is a changed circumstance. Accordingly, for purposes of determining good faith, creditors may use revised estimates of settlement charges that consumers would incur in connection with the mortgage transaction if the COVID-19 pandemic has affected the estimate of such settlement charges. 17

The Bureau is issuing this interpretive rule based on its authority to interpret TILA and Regulation Z, including under section 1022(b)(1) of the Dodd-Frank Act, which authorizes guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to enable the Bureau to administer and carry out the purposes and objectives of the Federal consumer financial laws. 18

By operation of TILA section 130(f), no provision of TILA sections 108(b), 108(c), 108(e), 112, or 130 imposing any liability applies to any act done or omitted in good faith in conformity with this interpretive rule, notwithstanding that after such act or omission has occurred, this interpretive rule is amended, rescinded, or determined by judicial or other authority to be invalid for any reason. 19

Because this rule is solely interpretive, it is not subject to the 30-day delayed effective date for substantive rules under section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act. 20 Therefore, this rule is effective on May 4, 2020, the same date that it is published in the Federal Register .

This rule articulates the Bureau's interpretation of Regulation Z and TILA. As an interpretive rule, it is exempt from the notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. 21 Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not require an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis. 22

The Bureau has determined that this interpretive rule does not impose any new or revise any existing recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirements on covered entities or members of the public that would be collections of information requiring OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 23

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 24 the Bureau will submit a report containing this interpretive rule and other required information to the United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to the rule's published effective date. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has designated this interpretive rule as not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

The Director of the Bureau, having reviewed and approved this document, is delegating the authority to electronically sign this document to Laura Galban, a Bureau Federal Register Liaison, for purposes of publication in the Federal Register .

On March 13, 2020, President Trump declared the ongoing Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency declaration for all States, territories, and the District of Columbia. With the COVID-19 emergency, many small businesses nationwide are experiencing economic hardship as a direct result of the Federal, State, tribal, and local public health measures that are being taken to minimize the public's exposure to the virus. These measures, some of which are government-mandated, are being implemented nationwide and include the closures of restaurants, bars, and gyms. In addition, based on the advice of public health officials, other measures, such as keeping a safe distance from others or even stay-at-home orders, are being implemented, resulting in a dramatic decrease in economic activity as the public avoids malls, retail stores, and other businesses.

On March 27, 2020, the President signed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the CARES Act or the Act) (Pub. L. 116-136) to provide emergency assistance and health care response for individuals, families, and businesses affected by the coronavirus pandemic. The Small Business Administration (SBA) received funding and authority through the Act to modify existing loan programs and establish a new loan program to assist small businesses nationwide adversely impacted by the COVID-19 emergency. Section 1102 of the Act temporarily permits SBA to guarantee 100 percent of 7(a) loans under a new program titled the “Paycheck Protection Program.” Section 1106 of the Act provides for forgiveness of up to the full principal amount of qualifying loans guaranteed under the Paycheck Protection Program. On April 24, 2020, the President signed the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act (Pub. L. 116-139), which provided additional funding and authority for the Paycheck Protection Program.

The intent of the Act is that SBA provide relief to America's small businesses expeditiously. This intent, along with the dramatic decrease in economic activity nationwide, provides good cause for SBA to dispense with the 30-day delayed effective date provided in the Administrative Procedure Act. Specifically, it is critical to meet lenders' and borrowers' need for clarity concerning program requirements as rapidly as possible because the last day eligible borrowers can apply for and receive a loan is June 30, 2020.

This interim final rule supplements previous regulations and guidance on several important, discrete issues. The immediate effective date of this interim final rule will benefit lenders so that they can swiftly close and disburse loans to small businesses. This interim final rule is effective without advance notice and public comment because section 1114 of the Act authorizes SBA to issue regulations to implement Title I of the Act without regard to notice requirements. This rule is being issued to allow for immediate implementation of this program. Although this interim final rule is effective immediately, comments are solicited from interested members of the public on all aspects of the interim final rule, including section III below. These comments must be submitted on or before June 3, 2020. SBA will consider these comments and the need for making any revisions as a result of these comments.

The CARES Act was enacted to provide immediate assistance to individuals, families, and organizations affected by the COVID-19 emergency. Among the provisions contained in the CARES Act are provisions authorizing SBA to temporarily guarantee loans under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). Loans under the PPP will be 100 percent guaranteed by SBA, and the full principal amount of the loans and any accrued interest may qualify for loan forgiveness. Additional information about the PPP is available in the First PPP Interim Final Rule (85 FR 20811), a second interim final rule (85 FR 20817) (the Second PPP Interim Final Rule), a third interim final rule (85 FR 21747) (the Third PPP Interim Final Rule), a fourth interim final rule (85 FR 23450) (the Fourth PPP Interim Final Rule), and in an interim final rule issued by the Department of the Treasury, which was posted for public inspection at the Federal Register on April 28, 2020 (FR Doc. 2020-09239) (collectively, the PPP Interim Final Rules).

a. Can a borrower take multiple draws from a PPP loan and thereby delay the start of the eight-week covered period?

No. The lender must make a one-time, full disbursement of the PPP loan within ten calendar days of loan approval; for the purposes of this rule, a loan is considered approved when the loan is assigned a loan number by SBA. 1 For loans that received an SBA loan number prior to the posting of this interim final rule but have not yet been fully disbursed, the following transition rules apply:

On March 13, 2020, President Trump declared the ongoing Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency declaration for all States, territories, and the District of Columbia. With the COVID-19 emergency, many small businesses nationwide are experiencing economic hardship as a direct result of the Federal, State, tribal, and local public health measures that are being taken to minimize the public's exposure to the virus. These measures, some of which are government-mandated, are being implemented nationwide and include the closures of restaurants, bars, and gyms. In addition, based on the advice of public health officials, other measures, such as keeping a safe distance from others or even stay-at-home orders, are being implemented, resulting in a dramatic decrease in economic activity as the public avoids malls, retail stores, and other businesses.

On March 27, 2020, the President signed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the CARES Act) (Pub. L. 116-136) to provide emergency assistance and health care response for individuals, families, and businesses affected by the coronavirus pandemic. The Small Business Administration (SBA) received funding and authority through the CARES Act to modify existing loan programs and establish a new loan program to assist small businesses nationwide adversely impacted by the COVID-19 emergency. Section 1102 of the CARES Act temporarily permits SBA to guarantee 100 percent of 7(a) loans under a new program titled the “Paycheck Protection Program.” Section 1106 of the CARES Act provides for forgiveness of up to the full principal amount of qualifying loans guaranteed under the Paycheck Protection Program. On April 24, 2020, the President signed the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act (Pub. L. 116-139), which provided additional funding and authority for the Paycheck Protection Program.

As described below, to preserve the limited resources available to the PPP program, this interim final rule limits the aggregate amount of PPP loans that any single corporate group may receive. This interim final rule also provides additional guidance regarding lenders eligible to make PPP loans.

The intent of the CARES Act is that SBA provide relief to America's small businesses expeditiously. This intent, along with the dramatic decrease in economic activity nationwide, provides good cause for SBA to dispense with the 30-day delayed effective date provided in the Administrative Procedure Act. Specifically, it is critical to meet lenders' and borrowers' need for clarity concerning program requirements as rapidly as possible because the last day eligible borrowers can apply for and receive a loan is June 30, 2020.

This interim final rule supplements previous regulations and guidance on certain important, discrete issues. The immediate effective date of this interim final rule will benefit lenders so that they can swiftly close and disburse loans to small businesses. This interim final rule is effective without advance notice and public comment because section 1114 of the CARES Act authorizes SBA to issue regulations to implement Title I of the CARES Act without regard to notice requirements. This rule is being issued to allow for immediate implementation of this program. Although this interim final rule is effective immediately, comments are solicited from interested members of the public on all aspects of this interim final rule, including section III below. These comments must be submitted on or before June 3, 2020. SBA will consider these comments and the need for making any revisions as a result of these comments.

The CARES Act was enacted to provide immediate assistance to individuals, families, and organizations affected by the COVID-19 emergency. Among the provisions contained in the CARES Act are provisions authorizing SBA to temporarily guarantee loans under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). Loans under the PPP will be 100 percent guaranteed by SBA, and the full principal amount of the loans and any accrued interest may qualify for loan forgiveness. Additional information about the PPP is available in SBA's first PPP interim final rule (85 FR 20811) (the First Interim Final Rule), second interim final rule (85 FR 20817), third interim final rule (85 FR 21747), and fourth interim final rule (85 FR 23450), in an interim final rule issued by the Department of the Treasury, which was posted on April 28, 2020, and in SBA's fifth interim final rule, which was posted on April 28, 2020.

No. To preserve the limited resources available to the PPP program, and in light of the previous lapse of PPP appropriations and the high demand for PPP loans, businesses that are part of a single corporate group shall in no event receive more than $20,000,000 of PPP loans in the aggregate. 1 For purposes of this limit, businesses are part of a single corporate group if they are majority owned, directly or indirectly, by a common parent. This limitation shall be immediately effective with respect to any loan that has not yet been fully disbursed as of April 30, 2020. 2

It is the responsibility of an applicant for a PPP loan to notify the lender if the applicant has applied for or received PPP loans in excess of the amount permitted by this interim final rule and withdraw or request cancellation of any pending PPP loan application or approved PPP loan not in compliance with the limitation set forth in this rule. Failure by the applicant to do so will be regarded as a use of PPP funds for unauthorized purposes, and the loan will not be eligible for forgiveness. A lender may rely on an applicant's representation concerning the applicant's compliance with this limitation.

The Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary, determined that limiting the amount of PPP loans that a single corporate group may receive will promote the availability of PPP loans to the largest possible number of borrowers, consistent with the CARES Act. The Administrator has concluded that a limitation of $20,000,000 strikes an appropriate balance between broad availability of PPP loans and program resource constraints.

SBA's affiliation rules, which relate to an applicant's eligibility for PPP loans, and any waiver of those rules under the CARES Act, continue to apply independent of this limitation. Businesses are subject to this limitation even if the businesses are eligible for the waiver-of-affiliation provision under the CARES Act or are otherwise not considered to be affiliates under SBA's affiliation rules. 3

This rule has no effect on lender obligations required to obtain an SBA guarantee for PPP loans.

a. Can a non-bank lender or non-insured depository institution be approved to be a lender in the PPP if it has originated, maintained, or serviced—but not performed all three of these functions for—more than $50 million in business loans or other commercial financial receivables during a 12-month period in the past 36 months?

Yes. The First Interim Final Rule provides that a non-bank lender or non-insured depository institution may be eligible to be a lender in the PPP if the lender has originated, maintained, and serviced more than $50 million in business loans or other commercial financial receivables during a 12-month period in the past 36 months, in addition to satisfying certain other requirements. To ensure broad and diverse lender participation, SBA and the Department of the Treasury have also determined that such lenders may be approved to make PPP loans if the lender has performed the required volume of any one of these three functions (originating, maintaining, or servicing).

b. Can a non-bank lender that does not meet the $50 million threshold in the First Interim Final Rule for originating, maintaining, and servicing loans or receivables apply to be a lender in the PPP?

Yes. As described in the First Interim Final Rule, a non-bank lender may be eligible to be a lender in the PPP if the lender has originated, maintained, and serviced more than $50 million in business loans or other commercial financial receivables during a 12-month period in the past 36 months, in addition to satisfying certain other requirements. In addition, SBA and the Department of the Treasury have determined that a non-bank lender meets the criteria to be a PPP lender and may be approved to make PPP loans if it has originated, maintained, or serviced more than $10 million in business loans or other commercial financial receivables during a 12-month period in the past 36 months, if the non-bank lender is (1) a community development financial institution (other than a federally insured bank or federally insured credit union) or (2) a majority minority-, women-, or veteran/military-owned lender. Consistent with the First Interim Final Rule, a lender is ineligible if it currently is designated in Troubled Condition by its primary federal regulator or is subject to a formal enforcement action with its primary federal regulator that addresses unsafe or unsound lending practices. An applicant that meets this $10 million threshold but does not meet the $50 million threshold that is otherwise applicable should leave blank the attestation on CARES Act Section 1102 Lender Agreement—Non-Bank and Non-Insured Depository Institution Lenders (SBA Form 3507) related to the $50 million threshold and instead include with its application an attestation stating: “Lender attests that it has originated, maintained, or serviced more than $10 million in business loans or other commercial financial receivables during a consecutive 12 month period in the past 36 months.”

SBA may provide further guidance, if needed, through SBA notices that will be posted on SBA's website at www.sba.gov. Questions on the Paycheck Protection Program may be directed to the Lender Relations Specialist in the local SBA Field Office. The local SBA Field Office may be found at https://www.sba.gov/tools/local-assistance/districtoffices.

This interim final rule is economically significant for the purposes of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, and is considered a major rule under the Congressional Review Act. SBA, however, is proceeding under the emergency provision at Executive Order 12866 Section 6(a)(3)(D) based on the need to move expeditiously to mitigate the current economic conditions arising from the COVID-19 emergency. This rule's designation under Executive Order 13771 will be informed by public comment.

SBA has drafted this rule, to the extent practicable, in accordance with the standards set forth in section 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. The rule has no preemptive or retroactive effect.

SBA has determined that this rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various layers of government. Therefore, SBA has determined that this rule has no federalism implications warranting preparation of a federalism assessment.

SBA has determined that this rule will not impose new or modify existing recordkeeping or reporting requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

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.” 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). Rules that are exempt from notice and comment are also exempt from the RFA requirements, including conducting a regulatory flexibility analysis, when among other things the agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. SBA Office of Advocacy guide: How to Comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Ch.1. p.9. Accordingly, SBA is not required to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis.

Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency for “good cause” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” In addition, section 553(d) of the APA requires that agencies publish a rule not less than 30 days before its effective date, except a substantive rule that relieves a restriction or “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and (3).

The FAA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment. The provisions in this final rule provide temporary relief to persons who have been unable to meet certain requirements during the national emergency concerning COVID-19. Without this final rule, certain individuals will not be able to continue exercising privileges in support of essential operations due to their inability to satisfy certain training, recent experience, testing, and checking requirements. Additionally, other individuals may—to the extent possible given closures—attempt to satisfy requirements through means contrary to the national social distancing guidelines in order to avoid economic burdens resulting from non-compliance with FAA regulations.

The FAA recognizes that there are aviation operations outside of air carrier and commercial operations conducted under part 119 of title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) that are critical during the COVID-19 outbreak, including operations that support essential services and flights that support fighting the outbreak. These operations are likely to face disruption due to a decreased supply of qualified pilots. Since March 2020 and with each month thereafter, a new group of pilots becomes unavailable to perform critical operations because they cannot comply with certain training, recent experience, testing, or checking requirements. This SFAR will provide temporary relief to certain individuals whose qualifications would otherwise lapse, to ensure there are a sufficient number of qualified personnel available to conduct essential aviation activities during this period. The FAA finds that this temporary action is needed to enable individuals to continue to exercise their airman certificate privileges during the national emergency.

This action is also needed to provide immediate notification to individuals facing impending expiration dates for certificates, endorsements, and test results. 1 With the cessation of many non-essential aviation training and testing activities, many individuals have been unable to complete certain activities before encountering expiration dates. Absent the relief in this rule, persons may attempt to satisfy certain requirements to avoid economic burdens associated with non-compliance, despite the fact that compliance would require acting contrary to the national social distancing guidelines. This final rule provides immediate relief from certain duration and renewal requirements to reduce unnecessary risk of exposure and to assure persons that they will not endure economic burdens due to non-compliance with certain regulations.

Accordingly, the FAA finds that providing notice and an opportunity to comment is contrary to the public interest, because it would delay implementation of this final rule, could result in disruption to critical aviation operations, and could increase the incidence of exposure during this public health emergency.

In addition, for the same reasons stated above, the FAA finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effective date of this final rule under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for the SFAR provisions that address the training and qualification requirements. Because the APA also allows a substantive rule that relieves a restriction to become effective in less than 30 days after publication, the FAA finds that the SFAR provisions that provide relief by extending duration and renewal requirements may also be immediately effective. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).

The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.). 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 49 U.S.C. 106(f), which establishes the authority of the Administrator to promulgate regulations and rules; 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which requires the Administrator to promulgate regulations and minimum standards for other practices, methods, and procedures necessary for safety in air commerce and national security; and 49 U.S.C. 44703(a), which requires the Administrator to prescribe regulations for the issuance of airman certificates when the Administrator finds, after investigation, that an individual is qualified for, and physically able to perform the duties related to, the position authorized by the certificate. This rulemaking provides airmen relief from certain training, recency, testing, and checking requirements, and establishes qualification requirements for airmen seeking to conduct essential operations during the COVID-19 outbreak. For these reasons, this rulemaking is within the scope of the FAA's authority.

The FAA's regulations contain several training, recent experience, testing, and checking requirements that persons must comply with prior to exercising their airman or crewmember privileges. The FAA's regulations also contain duration requirements, such as those pertaining to medical certificates, the validity of knowledge tests, and general procedures for completing a practical test. Additionally, the FAA prescribes renewal requirements for inspection authorization holders, flight instructors, and pilot school certificates. Because of the national social distancing guidelines to prevent the transmission of COVID-19, persons have been unable to comply with several of the FAA's requirements. As a result, “lapses” in qualifications, which occur on the last day of each month, will affect an additional cohort of regulated parties at the end of each month during which stay-at-home advisories are in place and even as routine activities begin to resume. The regulatory relief provided in this SFAR will enable the continuity of aviation operations that are critical during the COVID-19 outbreak, including operations that support essential services and flights that support response efforts. Additionally, the SFAR contains regulatory relief for persons who are unable to satisfy certain requirements, to prevent those persons from enduring unnecessary economic burdens due to circumstances related to the outbreak that are outside of their control.

The FAA's regulations also contain requirements for special flight permits. The COVID-19 public health emergency has resulted in a number of air carriers and operators needing to store aircraft long term. This SFAR provides regulatory relief to temporary overflow aircraft to be flown to a point of storage with a continuing authorization.

This SFAR is effective through March 31, 2021, which is the longest duration of relief under this rule, provided to airman who hold inspection authorizations under part 65. The FAA advises, however, that this date does not reflect the duration for every provision in the SFAR. Each person exercising relief provided by this SFAR should understand the conditions and duration of such relief.

Generally, the FAA issues airman certificates to individuals upon successful completion of a knowledge test and practical test. Once an airman holds a certificate, the FAA's regulations contain additional training and qualification requirements that an airman must satisfy to continue exercising the privileges of the certificate or to conduct a particular operation in a specific aircraft.

Part 61 contains various recent experience  2 (“recency”) and recurrent training and checking requirements  3 that a pilot must satisfy prior to acting as pilot in command (PIC). 4 Several regulations require pilots to obtain proficiency checks from someone authorized by the Administrator prior to serving as PIC (or in some cases, second in command (SIC)) of an aircraft. 5 Part 91, subpart K, and part 125 contain specific qualification requirements for crewmembers. 6 Part 107 contains an aeronautical knowledge recency requirement that must be met prior to operating a small unmanned aircraft system (UAS). 7 FAA also has recurrent training and recent experience requirements specific to the Mitsubishi MU-2B  8 and recent experience requirements specific to the Robinson R-22/R-44. 9

In addition, the FAA prescribes several duration requirements, such as those pertaining to the validity of knowledge tests and procedures for completing practical tests. 10 The FAA's regulations also contain renewal requirements for persons holding flight instructor certificates issued under part 61 and for schools holding pilot school certificates and provisional pilot school certificates issued under part 141.

On January 31, 2020, the Secretary of Health and Human Services declared a public health emergency for the United States to aid in responding to COVID-19. On March 13, 2020, the President declared that the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States constitutes a national emergency. COVID-19 cases have been reported in all 50 States as well as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. On March 16, 2020, the President and the White House Coronavirus Task Force announced a program called “15 Days to Slow the Spread,”  11 a nationwide effort to slow the spread of COVID-19 in the United States through the implementation of social distancing at all levels of society. On March 31, 2020, the President and the White House Coronavirus Task Force announced “30 Days to Slow the Spread,” which extended the social distancing guidelines for 30 days. 12

The FAA has received several letters from industry associations petitioning the FAA for relief and extensions from certain requirements during the COVID-19 public health emergency. 13 In a letter from the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), National Business Aviation Association (NBAA), General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) and Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), 14 the associations asked the FAA to provide the maximum amount of flexibility within its authority by granting exemptions or relief from certain regulatory requirements applicable to general aviation pilots. 15

In another letter, 16 NBAA noted that private and recreational aircraft are used by businesses around the country to provide essential support. 17 NBAA provided examples of critical operations that included medical equipment manufacturers' transportation of equipment, the use small aircraft to observe the condition of power lines and pipelines, and the performance of aerial operations to sustain agriculture during planting season. NBAA cited a February PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP study that concluded general aviation contributes 1.1 million jobs and $247 billion in economic activity to the U.S. economy. NBAA emphasized that it is imperative to ensure continuity of these operations as our Nation recovers from the COVID-19 emergency. 18

In another letter, several industry associations  19 sought broad relief on behalf of the general aviation industry. 20 The associations recognized the FAA's efforts aimed at air carrier operations, training centers, pilot schools, manufacturers, and maintenance providers to sustain operations through exemptions and deviations from regulations and policies. The associations emphasized, however, that the general aviation industry also needs relief to ensure the continuity of operations and commerce during the COVID-19 public health emergency. 21 The associations noted that, internationally, other civil aviation authorities have already provided exemptions to both commercial and noncommercial operators. 22

The industry associations also explained how various general aviation operations can be critical to the Nation and can play a crucial role in the U.S. and worldwide economy. For example, they noted that general aviation directly connects more than 5,000 public airports compared to the 500 airports used by scheduled airlines. Additionally, the associations stressed the importance of general aviation operations for lifesaving air medical missions, the movement of essential personnel and medical equipment, aerial applications for crops, forestry treatments, firefighting, and eradication of mosquitoes and other disease-carrying pests. The associations further emphasized the importance of rotorcraft operations due to the vertical lift capability, which expands the range of locations at which operations can take place to support the movement of people, supplies, and critical services. The associations also noted that rotorcraft support operations of a wide range of public safety service providers, including law enforcement, firefighting, and search and rescue.

Without the relief provided in this SFAR, certain persons are at risk of ceasing operations due to their inability to satisfy training and qualification requirements due to disruptions caused by the COVID-19 outbreak. Airmen have experienced difficulty complying with certain training, recency, checking, testing, duration, and renewal requirements as a result of stay-at-home advisories and social distancing implemented to slow the spread of the virus. To comply with many of these requirements, an airman would have been required to be in close proximity to another individual, often in a small, confined space such as the flight deck of an aircraft or inside a simulator. As such, the airman would have had to increase the risk of transmission of the virus.

Even as routine activity begins to resume, the disruption caused by such public health measures has impeded and will continue to impede training and qualification activities in the near-term, resulting in airmen qualifications lapsing either because persons cannot access training facilities or FAA inspectors are unavailable to conduct required tests, checks, or observations. Furthermore, classroom-training environments, such as those provided by part 141 pilot schools, may continue to introduce personnel to unnecessary risks of exposure. To enable the continuity of aviation operations that are critical to the Nation, the FAA finds it necessary to provide short-term relief from certain training, qualification, duration, and renewal requirements. Because this SFAR addresses multiple regulations from several parts of the Federal Aviation Regulations, the FAA has provided the necessary background information in the relevant sections of the Discussion of the Final Rule. The FAA emphasizes that, apart from the limited relief granted in this SFAR, individuals must continue to comply with all applicable FAA regulations. 23

Each of the following sections explains the relief being granted, the airmen or air agencies eligible for the relief, and the mitigations the FAA finds necessary to ensure aviation safety is maintained. 24 The temporary relief provided here reflects and is limited to the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 outbreak.

As noted in the letters from industry, general aviation operators and crewmembers can be a key part of the U.S. infrastructure. The support that general aviation provides is particularly critical at this time given the unprecedented disruption caused by the public health emergency. Because public health measures requiring or recommending people to stay at home resulted in the inability of airmen to complete certain regulatory requirements and such disruptions are likely to continue in the short-term as routine activities begin to resume, the FAA finds temporary relief from some requirements is warranted to maintain critical operations and reduce burdens on airmen.

Relief granted in this section to certain eligible pilots and crewmembers applies only to persons conducting specific operations for which the FAA has determined relief is appropriate.

The relief applies to any operation that requires the pilot to hold at least a commercial pilot certificate. This provision will support the continuity of essential commercial operations, which include aerial observation of critical infrastructure, aerial applications ( e.g., crops), and private carriage of medical supplies and equipment, which are conducted under part 91, subpart K, and parts 125, 133, and 137. 25

Additionally, this relief applies to some operations conducted by pilots exercising private pilot privileges, provided the pilot has at least 500 hours of total time as a pilot of which 400 hours is as PIC and 50 of the PIC hours were accrued in the last 12 calendar months. The kinds of operations permitted are those that are:

• Incidental to business or employment,

• in support of family medical needs or to transport essential goods for personal use,

• necessary to fly an aircraft to a location in order to meet a requirement of this chapter, or

• a flight to transport essential goods and/or medical supplies to support public health needs.

This SFAR also extends to pilots conducting charitable medical flights for a volunteer pilot organization pursuant to an exemption issued under part 11, provided the pilots continue to comply with the conditions and limitations of the exemption. For flights conducted by private pilots under this relief, no one may be carried on the aircraft unless that person is essential to the purpose of the flight, such as when transporting doctors for the purpose of providing medical care. This relief does not permit private pilots to conduct these operations for compensation or hire unless permitted under the exception in § 61.113(b), (d), (e), or (h), or by exemption. 26

This relief also extends to flight attendant crewmembers, check pilots, and flight instructors under part 91, subpart K, and part 125. Finally, this relief applies to operations conducted under part 107 of this chapter by a person who holds a remote pilot certificate issued under part 107. Pilots exercising commercial pilot privileges have at least 190 hours of flight time as a pilot and have been tested to a higher standard than private pilots. The eligibility requirements for private pilots are consistent with conditions and limitations imposed on private pilots conducting charitable flights under a part 11 exemption.

This SFAR addresses crewmember qualifications that have already lapsed as well as those that may lapse in the next few months, provided the crewmember is eligible for the relief and satisfies the safety mitigations before exercising their privileges. The eligibility requirements and mitigations are discussed more fully in each subsection.

Part 61 prescribes the requirements for pilot, flight instructor, and ground instructor certification, which include training, recency, testing, and checking requirements. The FAA is providing relief for second-in-command (SIC) qualifications, pilot flight reviews, specific recency of experience requirements, and the PIC proficiency check for pilots that operate aircraft that require more than one pilot flight crewmember or are turbojet-powered. The specific relief is described in paragraphs A.1.a. through A.1.d.

Section 61.55(b) states that no person may serve as SIC of an aircraft certificated for more than one required pilot flight crewmember or in operations requiring a SIC unless that person has, within the previous 12 calendar months, become familiar with certain information specific to the type of aircraft and performed and logged pilot time in the type of aircraft or in a flight simulator that represents the type of aircraft. 27 Although paragraph (c) provides SICs a grace month  28 for accomplishing this recency requirement, the public health emergency is creating challenges for accomplishing this requirement even within that additional timeframe.

As a result, the FAA finds, under the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 outbreak, that allowing eligible SICs two additional grace months for completing the requirements of § 61.55(b) would not present additional risk to aviation safety that cannot be mitigated, as explained in the next paragraph. The additional grace months are available to pilots whose base month falls in March, April, May, or June 2020. The “base month” is the month in which training is due. The “grace months” are the months after the month in which training is due, during which the pilot is still eligible to maintain recency. Under this SFAR, pilots will have a total of three grace months after the base month to accomplish the requirements of § 61.55(b). 29 If these requirements are completed during the grace period, they will be considered to have been completed during the base month.

To attain the two additional grace months, eligible pilots must complete the following requirements prior to serving as an SIC: (1) Review the information for the specific type of aircraft for which they are seeking SIC privileges as prescribed in § 61.55(b)(1)(i)-(v); and (2) have logged at least three takeoffs and landings to a full stop as the sole manipulator of the flight controls of the aircraft they will serve as an SIC in within the 180 days prior to serving as an SIC in that aircraft.

Section 61.56(c) states that no person may act as PIC of an aircraft, unless since the beginning of the 24th calendar month before the month in which that person acts as PIC, that person has accomplished a flight review in an aircraft for which that person is rated and the person's logbook has been endorsed for that review by an authorized instructor certifying the review was satisfactorily completed. 30

The FAA finds, under the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 outbreak, that extending the 24 calendar month requirement of § 61.56(c) by up to three calendar months will not adversely affect safety, provided the extension applies to active pilots and certain risk mitigations are met. The three calendar month extension applies to pilots who were current to act as PIC of an aircraft in March 2020 and whose flight review was due in March 2020 through June 2020. To mitigate any safety risk, the pilot must have logged at least 10 hours of PIC time within the twelve calendar months preceding the month the flight review was due. This flight time must be obtained in an aircraft for which that pilot is rated. 31 In addition, eligible pilots will need to complete FAA Safety Team online courses totaling at least three WINGS credits. 32 The courses must have been completed in January 2020 or later to meet this requirement. Completion of the safety courses demonstrates continued learning and pilot professional development.

Section 61.57 contains the recent flight experience requirements to serve as a PIC in an aircraft under various conditions. These conditions include the recency requirements for carrying passengers during day and night operations and operations under instrument flight rules (IFR). After reviewing the recent flight experience requirements of this section, the FAA has determined that only relief for instrument recency is warranted.

Section 61.57(c) specifies the requirements to serve as a PIC under IFR or weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for visual flight rules (VFR). To be current under § 61.57(c), 33 a pilot must have performed and logged, within the six calendar months preceding the month of the flight, six instrument approaches, holding procedures and tasks, and intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigational electronic systems. This experience can be performed in actual weather conditions or under simulated conditions using a view-limiting device in an airplane, powered-lift, helicopter, or airship, as appropriate, or in a full flight simulator (FFS), flight training device (FTD), or aviation training device (ATD) if the device represents the category of aircraft for the instrument rating privileges to be maintained. 34

If a pilot is unable to establish instrument recency in accordance with § 61.57(c), paragraph (d) prescribes how a pilot may reestablish instrument recency. If a pilot does not have the required approaches, holding, and intercepting and tracking courses in the preceding six calendar months, the pilot has an additional six calendar months to obtain the required experience by flying with a view-limiting device and a safety pilot  35 or using a training device. During this period, the pilot may not serve as the PIC under IFR or weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR. If the pilot fails to meet the instrument experience requirements for more than six calendar months, the pilot must complete an instrument proficiency check administered by an authorized instructor, company check pilot, designated pilot examiner, or person approved by the Administrator. 36

The FAA finds, under the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 outbreak, that relief for instrument recency is appropriate under certain conditions. The FAA is extending the six calendar month requirement of § 61.57(c)(1) by an additional three calendar months. This will enable a pilot to continue exercising instrument privileges, provided the pilot has performed the required tasks within the nine calendar months preceding the month of the flight, instead of the preceding six calendar months.

To be eligible for the relief, a pilot will need to have some recent experience in instrument flight. More specifically, the FAA is requiring that the pilot have logged, in the preceding six calendar months, three instrument approaches in actual weather conditions, or under simulated conditions using a view-limiting device. Eligible pilots may exercise the relief in this SFAR through June 30, 2020. After that date, a pilot must be current in accordance with § 61.57(c). If the pilot does not meet the instrument experience requirements before June 30, 2020, the pilot retains the ability to reestablish recency in accordance with § 61.57(d). However, the pilot will no longer have six months to reestablish instrument recency. Instead, the number of months available for a pilot to attain the instrument experience prior to requiring completion of the instrument proficiency check will depend on when the person last established instrument recency in accordance with § 61.57(c). 37

Section 61.58 requires a PIC proficiency check for those pilots that fly an aircraft that requires more than one pilot flight crewmember or is turbojet-powered. Paragraph (a)(1) requires a pilot to complete a PIC proficiency check within the preceding twelve calendar months in an aircraft that is type certificated for more than one required pilot flight crewmember or is turbojet-powered. In addition, paragraph (a)(2) requires a pilot to accomplish, within the preceding 24 calendar months, a PIC proficiency check in the particular type of aircraft in which that person will serve as PIC that is type-certificated for more than one required pilot flight crewmember or is turbojet-powered. 38 Paragraph (i) establishes a grace month for completing the PIC proficiency check. Specifically, it allows the check to be completed in the month prior to or the month after the month in which the check is due.

The FAA finds, under the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 outbreak, that allowing two additional grace months for completing the PIC proficiency checks required by § 61.58(a)(1) and (2) does not present a risk to aviation safety that cannot be mitigated, as explained in the next paragraph. Eligible pilots are those pilots who are required to complete a proficiency check in accordance with § 61.58(a)(1) and whose base month falls within the time period of March 2020 through June 2020. In accordance with § 61.58(a)(2), pilots who have not completed a proficiency check in the aircraft they intend to fly within the preceding 24 calendar months and whose base month falls between March 2020 and June 2020, are also eligible for the relief in this SFAR. 39 Pilots will have a total of three grace months after the base month to accomplish the PIC proficiency check required by § 61.58(a)(1) and (2). 40 A PIC proficiency check completed during the grace period will be considered to have been completed in the base month.

To obtain the two additional grace months provided by this SFAR, a pilot must meet certain qualification requirements to ensure the pilot has recent flight experience and is knowledgeable on the procedures and performance limitations for the specific type of aircraft the PIC will operate. First, an eligible pilot must meet the recent flight experience required by § 61.57 as applicable to the flight being conducted. 41 Additionally, an eligible pilot must have reviewed, within the previous three calendar months preceding the month of the flight, the following for each specific aircraft type for which PIC privileges are desired:

a. Operational procedures applicable to the powerplant, equipment, and systems.

b. Performance specifications and limitations.

c. Normal, abnormal, and emergency operating procedures.

d. Flight manual.

e. Placards and markings.

Part 91, subpart K, prescribes the additional rules that apply to private, general aviation fractional ownership programs. The subpart provides the regulatory definitions and safety standards for fractional ownership programs; defines the program and program elements; allocates operational control responsibilities and authority to the owners and program manager; and provides increased operational and maintenance safety requirements for fractional ownership programs. There are currently nine fractional ownership programs operating under part 91, subpart K. They range in size from managers with two aircraft to managers with over 500 airplanes and helicopters.

The crewmember testing and checking requirements are established in §§ 91.1065, 91.1067, 91.1069, and 91.1071. Recurrent training requirements for crewmembers are specified in §§ 91.1073, 91.1099, and 91.1107. These requirements cover the following activities and timelines for completion:

• Section 91.1065—pilot knowledge testing and competency checking requirements (completed within the previous twelve months before the pilot serves as a required crewmember);

• Section 91.1067—flight attendant crewmember testing requirements (completed within the previous twelve months before serving as a flight attendant crewmember);

• Section 91.1069(a) and (b)—instrument proficiency checking requirements for PICs (completed within the previous six months) and SICs (completed in previous twelve months);

• Section 91.1099—initial or recurrent training (completed within the previous twelve months before serving as a crewmember);

• Section 91.1107—crewmember recurrent training (completed within the previous twelve months before serving as a crewmember);

• Section 91.1069(c)—instrument approach procedure recency (demonstrated that type of approach within previous six months);

• Section 91.1071(a)—creates a grace month that allows a crewmember test or flight check required by subpart K to be completed in the month before or after the month it is required; and

• Section 91.1073(b)—creates a grace month that allows crewmember recurrent training required by subpart K to be completed in the month before or after the month it is required.

Subpart K of part 91 also contains instructor and check pilot qualifications in §§ 91.1089 through 91.1095. Sections 91.1089 and 91.1091 require check pilots and flight instructors qualified in simulators to fly at least two flight segments as a required crewmember for the type, class, or category of aircraft involved within the previous twelve-month period or complete an approved line-observation program within the period prescribed by that program. Paragraph (g) in both sections provides a grace month stating that the flight segments or line observations are considered complete if completed in the month before or the month after in which they are due. Sections 91.1093 and 91.1095 require that a person who conducts checking or instruction have satisfactorily completed an observation check within the preceding 24 months. Paragraph (b) in both sections also provides a grace month for the checks to be completed.

The FAA finds, under the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 outbreak, that allowing a total of three grace months after the base month for completing the covered training, testing, and checking requirements for crewmembers, check pilots, and flight instructors whose base month is in March, April, May, or June 2020—many of which already permit one grace month—does not present a risk to aviation safety that cannot be mitigated under the conditions of this SFAR. Management specifications holders must conduct a safety analysis and provide appropriate mitigations in an acceptable plan to their FAA principal inspector. This plan would address any potential risk introduced by extending crewmember, check pilot, and flight instructor qualifications, training, and checking. The plan must ensure crewmembers remain adequately trained and currently proficient for each aircraft, crewmember position, and type of operation in which the crewmember serves in accordance with § 91.1081(e). The relief applies to requirements for currently qualified crewmembers, check pilots, and flight instructors only. It does not apply to requirements for the training and qualification of new personnel.

Subpart N of part 91 contains training, experience, and operating requirements specific to the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane. Except as specified in § 91.1703(b), 42 a person may not manipulate the controls, act as PIC, or act as SIC of a MU-2B series airplane for the purpose of flight unless that person satisfies certain ground and flight training requirements, 43 including recurrent training requirements, in an FAA-approved MU-2B training program that meets the standards of subpart N of part 91. This requirement is contained in § 91.1705(a)(1). 44

In addition, § 91.1705(b)(1) states that, except as specified in § 91.1703(b), a person may not manipulate the controls, act as PIC, or act as SIC, of a MU-2B series airplane for the purpose of flight unless that person satisfactorily completes, if applicable, recurrent pilot training on the special emphasis items and all items listed in the Training Course Final Phase Check in accordance with an FAA-approved MU-2B training program that meets the standards of subpart N of part 91. 45

Section 91.1703(e) requires a person to complete recurrent training within the preceding twelve months without the option of a grace month. 46 Under § 91.1705(e), however, a person has one grace month to comply with the training requirements of § 91.1705(a) or (b). Therefore, § 91.1705(e) allows a person to accomplish the recurrent training one month after the month it is due.

Section 91.1715(c) stipulates that completion of a flight review to satisfy the requirements of § 61.56 is valid for operation of a Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane only if that flight review is conducted in a Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane, or an MU-2B simulator approved for landings with an approved course conducted under part 142.

Under the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 outbreak, the FAA supports relief for certain experienced pilots flying MU-2B series airplanes. This relief is not applicable to pilots that are required to complete initial/transition or requalification training in an MU-2B series airplane, 47 because these pilots could not meet the qualification requirements.

Under this SFAR, a person may obtain two additional grace months to complete the recurrent training requirements. 48 To be eligible for this relief, pilots must be qualified under part 91, subpart N, and their base month for completing the recurrent training must fall in March, April, May, or June 2020. If a pilot completes the recurrent training requirements within the grace period provided by this SFAR, the requirements will be considered to have been completed in the base month. Additionally, to ensure there is no adverse impact to safety, the FAA has determined it is necessary to impose certain qualification requirements on pilots seeking to exercise this relief. The qualification requirements are intended to serve as risk mitigations to ensure that pilots exercising the temporary relief under this SFAR are active pilots with recent flight experience in the MU-2B. To exercise the relief, a pilot must also have a minimum of 10 hours of flight time in an MU-2B series airplane within the previous twelve calendar months of the base month. Three of those hours must be obtained within three calendar months preceding the base month. In addition, as required by § 91.1715(a), the pilot must have at least three takeoffs and landings to a full stop as sole manipulator of the controls in an MU-2B series airplane within the last ninety days prior to the flight.

Furthermore, prior to manipulating the controls of an MU-2B series airplane in accordance with this SFAR, pilots must complete three hours of self-study since January 1, 2020, and preceding the date of the flight. This self-study must include the ground training required by § 91.1705(h)(1) and the special emphasis items listed in the approved MU-2B training program last completed. In addition, pilots must review the limitations, procedures, aircraft performance, and MU-2B Cockpit Checklist procedures applicable to the flight training curriculum required by § 91.1705(h)(2) for the MU-2B model flown and the current general operating and flight rules of part 91. Consistent with the flight review requirements of this SFAR, MU-2B series pilots must complete online courses for three WINGS credits. These courses must have been completed since January 1, 2020.

Section 107.65 requires remote pilots certificated under part 107 to establish recency of knowledge every 24 calendar months. To meet the recency of knowledge requirement per § 107.65(a) or (b), remote pilots must pass an FAA knowledge test at a knowledge testing center. The initial and recurrent knowledge tests required by § 107.65(a) or (b) cover the comprehensive list of knowledge areas specified in § 107.73(a) or (b), respectively. Section 107.65(c) allows remote pilots who are also certificated under part 61 and have a current flight review in accordance with § 61.56 to complete online training to meet aeronautical knowledge recency. The initial or recurrent training course covers the condensed list of knowledge areas specified in § 107.74(a) or (b), respectively, because the part 61 pilot who has a current flight review has already demonstrated knowledge of many of the topic areas tested on the UAS knowledge test. 49

Even if open, some knowledge testing centers may introduce airmen to risks of exposure to COVID-19. The inability of part 107 operators to remain current could have a negative impact on a community's ability to support the safe inspection of infrastructure, including power lines, fire and rescue, flood responses, law enforcement, and overall public safety.

Under the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 outbreak, eligible remote pilots who would normally establish recency of knowledge in accordance with § 107.65(a) or (b) may complete online training as an alternative if required to establish recency between April 2020 and June 2020. The remote pilot may complete the FAA-developed initial or recurrent online training courses  50 at www.faasafety.gov one time to establish knowledge recency for six calendar months. 51 As previously stated, the initial or recurrent online training course covers a condensed list of UAS-specific knowledge areas because it is intended for persons who hold part 61 pilot certificates and satisfy the flight review requirements of § 61.56. The FAA finds that, for a limited duration of time, allowing remote pilots to complete one of these online training courses is an adequate alternative to passing a knowledge test. However, because these courses do not include all of the knowledge areas under § 107.73(a) or (b) that a remote pilot is required to be tested on every 24 calendar months, the remote pilot will need to establish knowledge recency in accordance with § 107.65 at the conclusion of the six calendar months. Remote pilots who qualify to establish recency of aeronautical knowledge per § 107.65(c) are not included in this relief. Pilots who use the relief from § 61.56 in this SFAR may establish recency of aeronautical knowledge per § 107.65(c) and retain remote pilot privileges for 24 calendar months.

Part 125 certificated operators conduct non-common carriage operations. Part 125 operators are not permitted to hold out to the public either directly or indirectly but can operate incidental to their business and have up to three long-term contracts for commercial operations. These contracts are normally for the carriage of cargo, sports teams, and orchestras. Section 125.3 establishes deviation authority for part 125. This allows operators to deviate from specified sections of part 125, under certain circumstances. 52 The FAA issues a Letter of Deviation Authority (LODA) for various kinds of operations to include airplane ferry, sales demonstrations, or training. 53 These LODA-holders conduct operations under part 91 and may hold an operating certificate and have operations specifications (OpSpecs). 54 The FAA also issues a LODA to an operator that conducts only non-commercial operations ( i.e., private use only)—specifically an A125 LODA. Holders of an A125 LODA do not hold an operating certificate or have OpSpecs. Instead, they are issued a letter of authorization (LOA) because the flightcrew members operating under an A125 LODA must comply with the recency, recurrent testing, and proficiency checking requirements of part 125.

Section 125.287 requires a pilot of a part 125 operation to have passed a written or oral test given by the Administrator or a check airman every twelve calendar months and pass a competency check in the type of airplane flown in part 125 operations every twelve calendar months. 55 Section 125.289 requires a flight attendant to complete recurrent testing every twelve calendar months. Section 125.293(a) provides for a grace month for crewmembers to complete testing or checking. 56 Section 125.291(a) requires that since the beginning of the sixth calendar month before service, the PIC of an airplane in a part 125 operation under IFR must have passed an instrument proficiency check and the Administrator or an authorized check airman has so certified in a letter of competency. 57 Finally, § 125.285(a) requires that pilot flight crewmembers complete three takeoffs and landings within the preceding 90 days in the type airplane in which that person is to serve.

Part 125 certificate holders and those that hold an A125 LODA operate airplanes with 20 seats or more, or a payload capacity of 6,000 pounds or more. These large airplanes are typically used to move personnel and materials to where they are needed and are an essential part of the U.S. supply chain. Part 125 certificate holders and A125 LODA holders are part of the U.S. economic infrastructure.

The FAA finds, under the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 outbreak, that allowing two additional grace months for completing the recurrent testing, checking, and training requirements does not present a risk to aviation safety that cannot be mitigated. In addition, the FAA is granting an additional sixty days for completing the three required takeoffs and landings. The requirements of this SFAR ensure that certificate holders and A125 LODA holders demonstrate a plan to mitigate any potential risk introduced by extending flight crewmember qualifications. 58 The relief applies to requirements for currently qualified flight crewmembers only, whose base month is March, April, May, or June 2020. It does not apply to requirements for the training and qualification of new personnel. In order to utilize the relief provided by this SFAR, the certificate holder or A125 LODA holder must provide an acceptable plan to its assigned principal operations inspector for acceptance that contains the following information—

(i) A safety analysis and corresponding risk mitigations to be implemented by the certificate holder or A125 LODA holder; and

(ii) The method the certificate holder or A125 LODA holder will use to ensure that each crewmember remains adequately tested and currently proficient for each aircraft, duty position, and type of operation in which the person serves.

SFAR 73 established special training and experience requirements for pilots operating the Robinson model R-22 or R-44 helicopters to maintain safe operation of these helicopters. The FAA determined that SFAR 73 was needed to increase awareness of, and training for, potential hazards of particular flight operations in the Robinson helicopters.

To act as PIC of a Robinson R-22 or R-44 helicopter, SFAR 73 requires the person to complete the flight review required under § 61.56 in an R-22 or R-44 helicopter, as appropriate to the PIC privileges sought, if the person has at least 200 flight hours in helicopters of which at least 50 flight hours are in the applicable Robinson model helicopter for which the person has PIC privileges. 59 Otherwise, it requires the person to comply with the endorsement requirements of SFAR 73. 60

Under the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 outbreak, the FAA has determined that the PIC of an R-22 or R-44 is compliant with SFAR 73 if the person meets the recency requirements of § 61.56 established in this SFAR in an R-22 or R-44, or both, as appropriate. This relief is limited to Robinson pilots that have at least 200 hours in helicopters of which at least 50 hours are in the applicable Robinson model helicopter for which the person has PIC privileges. Low-time Robinson pilots that are required to complete a flight review every twelve calendar months in accordance with SFAR 73 must continue to comply with that SFAR.

For the relief in this SFAR, the flight review must include SFAR 73 awareness training subjects in paragraph 2(a)(3) and the flight training subjects in paragraph 2(b). R-22 or R-44 pilots whose flight review is due in March through June 2020 may extend an additional three calendar months, provided the pilots have at least 10 hours of PIC time in an R-22 or R-44 as applicable, in the preceding twelve calendar months, of which three hours must be in the three calendar months preceding the month in which the flight review is due. R-22 and R-44 pilots must also complete a minimum of three hours of self-study since January 1, 2020 and prior to the flight being conducted on the following subjects—

1. SFAR 73 awareness training in 2(a)(3)(i)-(v);

2. 14 CFR part 91 regulations;

3. Robinson R-22 or R-44 Maneuvers Guide applicable to the model (R-22 or R-44) for which the airman has PIC privileges; or both maneuver guides, if the airman has PIC privileges in both Robinson model helicopters;  61

4. Complete Course ALC-103: Helicopter Weight and Balance, Performance at www.faasafety.gov; and

5. Complete ALC-104: Helicopter—General and Flight Aerodynamics at www.faasafety.gov.

The courses identified in 4 and 5 may be used to satisfy the WINGS credit as required by the relief to § 61.56 of this SFAR. 62

Maintaining the continuity of operations through the relief in section A of this document is important to ensure the stability of essential functions of the U.S. transportation system. The FAA also finds that it is appropriate to grant relief for certain duration and renewal requirements because the COVID-19 outbreak has made compliance difficult or in some instances impossible. Without this short-term relief, certificate holders will have to choose between attempting to comply with FAA requirements or abiding by public health measures.

The relief discussed more fully in the following sections responds to initial disruptions that have prevented certificate holders from seeking timely renewals of certificates or from completing certain testing activity before expiration dates have passed. Because these disruptions may continue for a brief time as routine activities begin to resume, the FAA is providing relief for periods of time deemed necessary to alleviate the burden. The FAA has determined, under the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 outbreak, that this relief will not adversely affect safety because it is narrowly focused on a small segment of the regulated community, it will be in effect for a short duration, and the regulations will provide safeguards to ensure an appropriate level of safety is maintained.

The FAA is granting temporary regulatory relief from the validity dates for medical certificates. This relief is further described in B.1.a and B.3.a. The FAA also recognizes that the inability to complete a practical test at this time is outside the applicant's control due to the cessation of practical tests. As a result, the FAA is providing relief to extend the knowledge test validity period as described in B.1.b. Finally, because reduced staffing at FAA Flight Standards offices, as well as stay-at-home advisories, prevented some flight instructors from renewing their certificate based on activity, FAA is providing relief to instructors whose certificate expired as described in B.1.c.

Section 61.2(a)(5) states that no person may exercise privileges of a medical certificate issued under 14 CFR part 67 if the medical certificate is expired according to the duration standards set forth in § 61.23(d). Section 61.23(d) states that the duration of a medical certificate depends on the age of the person on the date of the medical examination, the duty position in which the person is serving, the type of operation the person is conducting, and the class of certificate.

On April 1, 2020, the FAA published an Enforcement Policy for Expired Airman Medical Certificates in the Federal Register (85 FR 18110) notifying the public that the Agency would not take legal enforcement action against any person serving as a required pilot flight crewmember or flight engineer based on noncompliance with medical certificate duration standards. The policy is limited to specified certificate expiration dates and to operations within U.S. airspace. The FAA also granted two exemptions relating to the duration of medical certificates, No. 18516 (Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2020-0318) and No. 18515 (Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2020-0317) limited to operations outside U.S. airspace conducted by certain 14 CFR part 119 certificate holders. The FAA is incorporating the relief granted in those exemptions into this SFAR and expanding it to all pilots to encompass all operations subject to §§ 61.2, 61.23, and 63.3. 63

Under the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 outbreak, the FAA has determined that it is not appropriate at this time to maintain the requirement of an FAA medical examination, which is a nonemergency medical service, in order for pilots with expiring medical certificates to obtain new medical certificates. Aviation medical examinations increase the risk of transmission of the virus through personal contact between the physician and the applicant for a medical certificate. Even as routine activity begins to resume, the disruption to medical examinations may continue.

The FAA notes that the provisions of this SFAR do not extend to the requirements of § 61.53 regarding prohibition on operations during medical deficiency. These prohibitions remain critical for all pilots to observe, especially given the policy of emergency accommodation announced here and the health threat of COVID-19. Accordingly, the FAA emphasizes that under § 61.53, no person who holds a medical certificate issued under 14 CFR part 67 may act as a required pilot flight crewmember while that person:

(1) Knows or has reason to know of any medical condition that would make the person unable to meet the requirements for the medical certificate necessary for the pilot operation; or

(2) is taking medication or receiving other treatment for a medical condition that results in the person being unable to meet the requirements for the medical certificate necessary for the pilot operation.

The FAA has determined that pilots may operate beyond the validity period of their medical certificate for a limited time without creating a risk to aviation safety that is unacceptable under the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the COVID-19 outbreak. For the reasons cited, for medical certificates that expire from March 31, 2020 through May 31, 2020, the FAA is extending the validity period of these medical certificates to June 30, 2020.

Section 61.39 establishes the eligibility requirements for an applicant seeking to take a practical test for a certificate or rating issued under part 61. Among these requirements, an applicant must have passed the required FAA knowledge test within a specified period of time. With the exception of the multiengine airplane airline transport pilot (ATP) certificate, FAA knowledge tests are valid for 24 calendar months. 64 The multiengine airplane ATP knowledge test is valid for sixty calendar months. 65

As a result of the COVID-19 outbreak, an applicant may not have been able to complete a practical test, as planned, prior to the expiration of his or her knowledge test. The majority of practical tests, if not all, have been temporarily suspended or cancelled. Most examiners are unwilling to provide testing until State and Federal public health measures have been lifted. Knowledge testing centers delivered more than 60,000 knowledge tests between March and June 2018. 66 Although the FAA does not know the number of applicants who have subsequently completed the practical test, the number of test results set to expire during this time period could be significant.

If an applicant's knowledge test expires before he or she can complete the practical test, that applicant is required to pass another knowledge test prior to completing the practical test. It costs a person $96-160 per test, 67 depending upon the testing location, to take an FAA knowledge test. Therefore, requiring a person whose knowledge test result expired during the COVID-19 outbreak to take another knowledge test would result in an additional economic burden on the applicant.

Where avoidable, it is not in the public interest to induce persons to attempt to complete a practical test, contrary to social distancing guidelines, solely to avoid an economic burden resulting from expiration of their knowledge test.

The FAA has determined, under the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 outbreak, that it is necessary to provide reasonable regulatory relief to the specific class of individuals who have knowledge tests expiring between March 2020 and June 2020. To ensure these individuals are not penalized by having to take another knowledge test, the FAA is extending the validity of knowledge tests by a duration of three calendar months. Therefore, this SFAR will allow an individual who has a knowledge test expiring between March 2020 and June 2020 to present the expired knowledge test to show eligibility under § 61.39(a)(1) to take a practical test for a certificate or rating issued under part 61 for an additional three calendar months. 68

In addition to passing a knowledge test, the eligibility requirements for taking a practical test require an applicant to satisfactorily accomplish the required training and obtain the aeronautical experience required for the certificate or rating sought. 69 The regulations also require the applicant to have received flight training from an authorized instructor in preparation for the practical test within the two months preceding the month of the test. 70 The authorized instructor must endorse the applicant's logbook or training record certifying that the applicant has received and logged this training and is prepared for the required practical test. 71 While this SFAR will allow certain individuals to use an expired knowledge test, the other requirements in part 61 will ensure the individual is prepared for the practical test, and the evaluator administering the practical test will have the opportunity to determine whether the person is qualified to hold the certificate. 72 Under the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 outbreak, and because the relief applies to a specific group of individuals and is limited in duration, the FAA has determined that these regulatory requirements will provide sufficient assurance that there will be no adverse impact to safety.

Unlike other airman certificates, flight instructor certificates have expiration dates. Section 61.197 establishes renewal requirements for flight instructor certificates. In accordance with paragraph (a), a person who holds a flight instructor certificate that has not expired may renew that flight instructor certificate through various methods. Generally, a flight instructor must renew his or her certificate every 24 calendar months. 73

Section 61.197(a)(2) offers four methods for renewal that require submitting a completed and signed application with the FAA. The application can be submitted in the renewal month or up to three calendar months preceding the renewal month. Section 61.197(a)(2) requires the flight instructor to satisfactorily complete one of the following renewal requirements:

• Train and endorse at least five students for a practical test for a certificate or rating during the preceding 24 calendar months with at least 80 percent of those students passing on the first attempt;

• serve, within the preceding 24 calendar months, as a company check pilot, chief flight instructor, company check airman, or flight instructor in a part 121 or 135 operation, or in a position involving the regular evaluation of pilots;

• successfully complete an approved flight instructor refresher course (FIRC), either in-person or online, within the preceding three calendar months preceding the expiration date of the certificate; or

• pass, within the preceding 24 calendar months, an official U.S. Armed Forces military instructor pilot or pilot examiner proficiency check in an aircraft for which the military instructor already holds a rating or in an aircraft for an additional rating.

A flight instructor certificate will expire if the flight instructor fails to comply with the renewal requirements set forth in § 61.197. The holder of an expired flight instructor certificate who has not complied with the renewal requirements may reinstate that flight instructor certificate and ratings only by passing a practical test for one of the ratings held on the flight instructor certificate or for an additional rating. 74

The COVID-19 outbreak has disrupted certificated flight instructors' plans for renewing their certificates using the methods prescribed in § 61.197(a)(2). For example, a flight instructor may have enrolled in an in-person FIRC that was subsequently cancelled due to stay-at-home advisories. Additionally, flight instructors who have satisfactorily completed one of the renewal requirements in § 61.197(a)(2)(i), (ii), or (iv) may be unable to travel to an FAA Flight Standards office to present records demonstrating eligibility for renewal.

During the COVID-19 outbreak, the FAA recommends that flight instructors take advantage of the option to renew their flight instructor certificates by satisfactorily completing an online FIRC in accordance with § 61.197(a)(2)(iii). 75 The FAA recognizes, however, that this is not an equitable option for all flight instructors as certain flight instructors may have already satisfied a renewal requirement other than a FIRC. For example, a flight instructor may have already trained and endorsed at least five students in the preceding 24 calendar months with an 80 percent pass rate.

The FAA has therefore determined, under the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 outbreak, that flight instructors who satisfy a renewal requirement listed in § 61.197(a)(2)(i), (ii), or (iv) should not be required to also complete an online FIRC, which is an additional economic burden, simply because the flight instructor is unable to process his or her renewal at an FAA Flight Standards office. Accordingly, to accommodate flight instructors who have flight instructor certificates expiring between March 31, 2020 and May 31, 2020, the FAA is extending the validity of these flight instructor certificates until June 30, 2020. Therefore, under this SFAR, a flight instructor who has a certificate expiring in March, April, May, or June 2020 may submit a completed and signed application with the FAA and show satisfactory completion of the one of the renewal requirements listed in § 61.197(a)(2)(i) through (iv) until June 30, 2020. A person who renews his or her flight instructor certificate during this grace period will retain the original expiration month on the flight instructor certificate. For example, if a person's flight instructor certificate expires in March 31, 2020, and that person renews his or her flight instructor certificate in accordance with this SFAR in June 2020, that person's renewed flight instructor certificate will still expire on March 31, 2022.

After June 30, 2020, a flight instructor who holds an expired flight instructor certificate must reinstate that certificate in accordance with § 61.199.

SFAR 100-2 allows the FAA Flight Standards offices to accept expired flight instructor certificates and inspection authorizations for renewals and expired airman written test reports for certain practical tests from U.S. military and civilian personnel (U.S. personnel) who are assigned outside the United States in support of U.S. Armed Forces operations. SFAR 100-2 is necessary to avoid penalizing U.S. personnel who are unable to meet the regulatory time limits of their flight instructor certificate, inspection authorization, or airman written test report because they are serving outside the United States in support of U.S. Armed Forces operations when they expire. The effect of SFAR 100-2 is to give U.S. personnel who are assigned outside the United States in support of U.S. Armed Forces operations extra time to meet certain eligibility requirements in the current rules.

Due to social distancing guidelines and stay-at-home advisories, persons affected by this SFAR may not be able to comply with paragraph 2.(c) of SFAR 100-2, which states the person must comply with § 61.197 or § 65.93, as appropriate, or complete the appropriate practical test within six calendar months after returning to the United States. Therefore, under the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 outbreak, the FAA is extending the relief granted by SFAR 100-2 by an additional three calendar months for eligible persons who returned to the U.S. from deployment in October 2019 through March 2020. This relief will enable those persons to complete the requirements of paragraph 2.(c) within nine calendar months after returning to the United States. 76 If a person returns from deployment after March 2020, that person must comply with SFAR-100-2.

As previously described, the FAA has determined to grant temporary relief from the expiration of medical certificates to provide additional time for airmen to accomplish medical examinations and obtain new medical certificates. Similarly, medical relief for flight engineers is necessary as described in B.3.a. Extending knowledge test passing results for flight engineers is also necessary and explained in B.3.b.

Section 63.3(b) states that a person may act as a flight engineer of an aircraft only if that person holds a current second-class medical certificate issued to that person under 14 CFR part 67. For the reason previously stated in section B.1.a and subject to the same conditions and limitations, the FAA has determined that flight engineers may operate beyond the validity period of their medical certificate for a limited time without creating a risk to aviation safety that is unacceptable under the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the COVID-19 outbreak. Accordingly, for medical certificates that expire from March 31, 2020 through May 31, 2020, the FAA is extending the validity period of these medical certificates to June 30, 2020.

The FAA notes that the provisions of this SFAR do not extend to the requirements of § 63.19 regarding prohibition on operations during physical deficiency. These prohibitions remain critical for all flight engineers to observe, especially given the policy of emergency accommodation announced here and the health threat of COVID-19. Accordingly, the FAA emphasizes that under § 63.19, no person who holds a medical certificate issued under 14 CFR part 67 may serve as a flight engineer during a period of known physical deficiency, or increase in physical deficiency, that would make him or her unable to meet the physical requirements for his or her current medical certificate.

Section 63.35 establishes the knowledge requirements for a person seeking a flight engineer certificate. Paragraph (d) states the applicant for a flight engineer certificate or rating must have passed the written tests required by paragraphs (a) and (b) since the beginning of the 24th calendar month before the month in which the flight is taken. 77

For the reasons discussed in section B.1.b of this preamble and subject to the same condition and limitations, the FAA is also providing relief to persons seeking a flight engineer certificate under part 63 who have written tests expiring between March 2020 and June 2020. Consistent with the relief provided to pilot applicants under part 61, the FAA is extending the validity of written tests under part 63 for a duration of three calendar months. The FAA finds, under the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 outbreak, that this relief will not adversely affect safety because it is narrowly focused on a small segment of the regulated community, it will be in effect for a short period of time, and the regulations will provide adequate safeguards to ensure an appropriate level of safety is maintained.

As described for pilots and flight engineers, extending knowledge test and written test results for aircraft dispatchers and mechanics, respectively, is also warranted and further described in B.4.a. and B.4.b. The ability for some mechanics to renew their inspector authorization (IA) has also been made more difficult as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak; therefore, the FAA is extending relief to eligible persons as described in B.4.c. Finally, the ability for former military parachute riggers to apply for a senior parachute rigger certificate is temporarily difficult, resulting in some limited relief as described in B.4.d.

The FAA finds, under the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 outbreak, that the relief provided to part 65 airmen will not adversely affect safety because it is narrowly focused on a small segment of the regulated community, it will be in effect for a short period of time, and the regulations will provide adequate safeguards to ensure an appropriate level of safety is maintained.

Section 65.55 establishes the knowledge requirements for a person seeking an aircraft dispatcher certificate. Paragraph (b) requires the applicant for an aircraft dispatcher certificate to present passing knowledge test results within the preceding 24 calendar months.

For the reasons discussed in section B.1.b and subject to the same conditions and limitations, the FAA, under the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 outbreak, is also providing relief to persons seeking an aircraft dispatcher certificate under part 65 who have knowledge tests expiring between March 2020 and June 2020. Therefore, consistent with the relief provided to pilot applicants under part 61 and flight engineer applicants under part 63, the FAA is extending the validity of knowledge tests under § 65.55 for a duration of three calendar months. Accordingly, an individual who has a knowledge test expiring between March 2020 and June 2020 may present the expired knowledge test to show eligibility under § 65.55 to take a practical test for an aircraft dispatcher certificate for a period of three calendar months.

Section 65.71 establishes the eligibility requirements for a mechanic certificate and associated ratings. Paragraph (a)(3) requires an applicant to have passed all of the prescribed tests within a period of 24 months from the initiation of testing. Testing for a FAA mechanic certificate includes three tests, which are the written, oral, and practical. 78 Section 65.75 establishes the knowledge requirements, including the requirement to pass a written test. Section 65.79 contains the skill requirements, including the requirement to pass an oral and practical test. Additionally, § 65.71(b) requires a certificated mechanic who applies for an additional rating to meet the experience requirements of § 65.77 and, within a period of 24 months, pass the written test required by § 65.75 and the oral and practical tests required by § 65.79 for the additional rating sought.

For the reasons discussed in section B.1.b of this preamble, the FAA, under the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 outbreak, is also providing relief to persons seeking a mechanic certificate or rating issued under part 65 who have testing periods expiring between March 2020 and June 2020. Therefore, consistent with the relief provided under parts 61 and 63, the FAA is extending the validity of the testing period under § 65.71 for a duration of three months. Accordingly, an individual who has a testing period expiring in March, April, May, or June 2020 may show eligibility under § 65.71 to take a practical test for a mechanic certificate or rating provided the testing period does not exceed 27 months. 79

There are more than 30,000 FAA-certificated mechanics  80 that hold inspection authorizations (IA), which enable them to perform vital aircraft maintenance services to the general aviation community. With the exception of any aircraft maintained in accordance with a continuous airworthiness program under part 121, mechanics with IA can inspect and approve for return to service any aircraft or related part or appliance after a major repair or major alteration to it if the work was done in accordance with technical data approved by the FAA. 81 The COVID-19 outbreak has posed a challenge for some of these mechanics to meet their renewal requirements under § 65.93.

Each inspection authorization expires on March 31st of each odd-numbered year. 82 However, a person holding an IA may only exercise the privileges of an IA if that person meets one of the annual activity requirements for each year of the two-year IA renewal period under § 65.93. The annual activity requirements prescribed in § 65.93(a) are: (1) Perform at least one annual inspection for each ninety days that the applicant held the current authority; (2) perform at least two major repairs or major alterations for each ninety days the applicant held the current authority; (3) perform or supervise and approve at least one progressive inspection; (4) complete an IA refresher course; or (5) pass an oral test by the FAA.

As a result of the COVID-19 outbreak, general aviation flight hours have declined dramatically, causing a reduction in aircraft maintenance. In some localities, many aircraft maintenance facilities are closed. The closure of these facilities could make the IA renewal option of conducting major repair and alterations, annual inspections, and progressive inspections extremely difficult to accomplish. In addition, a majority of FAA-sponsored IA renewal seminars, which are typically held in-person at local FAA offices, were cancelled in March 2020. Finally, in person staffing at Flight Standards offices has been reduced with a majority of the employees teleworking, which has made the oral testing option more challenging. The only remaining option was to complete an IA refresher course online. Due to the confusion and uncertainty surrounding the COVID-19 outbreak, many mechanics may have been caught off-guard and without a plan to meet their annual requirement. If an IA holder was unable to meet the annual activity requirement for the 2019/2020 calendar year, he or she would not be eligible to renew in March of 2021, and the only option to regain the authorization would be by retaking and passing the FAA written test and an oral test.

The FAA has decided, under the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 outbreak, to provide relief for IA holders that were unable to meet the first year (even-numbered year) renewal requirements by March 2020 as prescribed in § 65.93. The extension provides an IA holder an additional three months (April-June 2020) to complete one of the listed activities in accordance with § 65.93(a)(1) through (5) to meet the first year renewal requirements. Consistent with the prohibition in § 65.93(c), an IA holder who has not met one of the five activities in § 65.93(a)(1) through (5) by June 30, 2020, may not exercise IA privileges after June 30, 2020. A person who has completed one of the listed activities in accordance with § 65.93(a)(1) through (5) by June 30, 2020, will be considered to have completed it by March 31, 2020, (first year of 2-year IA period) for the purposes of determining compliance with the renewal requirements of § 65.93(a).

The FAA emphasizes, however, that an activity performed between April and June 2020 to satisfy the first year renewal requirements under this SFAR cannot also be used to meet the year two renewal requirements. An IA holder is still required to complete one of the five activities specified in § 65.93(a)(1) through (5) by March 31, 2021 to satisfy the renewal requirements for the second year of the two-year period. The requirements in § 65.93(a)(1) and (2), which require the activity to be performed “each 90 days,” do not mean the requirement must be completed each quarter. The requirement only sets the number of activities that an applicant must perform during the renewal period (since an applicant may not have held their rating for an entire year). Accordingly, these activities could be performed at any point during the renewal period. 83 For this reason, the FAA has determined it is unnecessary to provide relief to individuals who are unable to meet these activities during the COVID-19 outbreak in the second-year renewal period because they are still able to comply with the requirements thereafter.

Parachute riggers provide a vital service to the parachuting industry to include firefighting smoke jumpers and other operations. Former military parachute riggers are essential to these operations. A special certification has been granted to military or former military parachute rigger applicants for a senior parachute rigger certificate under § 65.117. A military applicant is required to pass a written test, present evidence of current or past military experience within the previous twelve months where he or she has served as a parachute rigger in the military, 84 and have the experience packing parachutes as prescribed in § 65.115(a). 85

Reduced staffing at Flight Standards offices, public health guidelines for social distancing, and travel restrictions in some localities significantly diminish a former military parachute rigger's ability to apply for a senior parachute rigger certificate within the prescribed twelve-month requirement under § 65.117. As a result, under the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 outbreak, the FAA is extending the period for former military parachute riggers to apply for a senior parachute rigger certificate by three months. Eligible persons are those former members or former civilian employees of an Armed Force of the United States or former civilian employees of a regular armed force of a foreign country who were honorably discharged or released beginning in March 2019 through June 2019. 86 The extension provides these applicants a total time of fifteen months to submit their application to the responsible Flight Standards office. The applicant must meet all applicable requirements prior to application within the extended deadline.

An applicant for a pilot school certificate must meet the requirements of § 141.5 within the preceding 24 calendar months before the date that application is made for that pilot school certificate. As part of the provisional pilot school approval process, the FAA is required to inspect training equipment, inspect training facilities, and approve training course outlines and their associated syllabi, and additionally all chief instructors and assistant chief instructors are required to have a proficiency test performed by an FAA Aviation Safety Inspector to ensure § 141.5(c) is met. Paragraphs (d) and (e) require the school to have an 80 percent pass rate of its applicants for practical tests and ratings, and the school must have graduated at least ten different people from the school's approved training courses. If a provisional pilot school does not meet the requirements of § 141.5(d) and (e), its provisional status cannot be renewed and the school must cease operations. 87 Many areas throughout the U.S. are under stay-at-home advisories, which prevent flight training activities, and many colleges and universities with aviation programs have cancelled classes for the remainder of the academic year. The inability for pilot schools and provisional pilot schools to graduate students from their programs jeopardizes their ability within the 24 calendar month timeframe to meet the 80 percent pass rate of their applicants for knowledge tests, practical tests, and end-of-course tests for special curriculum courses and courses approved under appendix K of part 141, and graduate at least ten different people from the school's approved training courses. Therefore, under the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 outbreak, the FAA is providing provisional pilot schools  88 whose 24 calendar-month window expires in April through June 2020, until December 31, 2020, to meet § 141.5(d) and (e), subject to the following conditions for provisional pilot schools taking advantage of this relief:

(1) Each part 141 provisional pilot school must notify its responsible Flight Standards office that it is applying for a pilot school certificate in accordance with this SFAR.

(2) In this notification, the part 141 provisional pilot school must submit an acceptable plan that explains the method to meet the requirements of § 141.5(d) and (e), which includes ensuring each instructor used for ground or flight training is current and proficient and evaluating students to determine if they are assigned to the proper stage of the training course and if additional training is necessary.

Section 141.27 requires all part 141 schools to renew their pilot school certificates every 24 calendar months. A provisional pilot school, in accordance with paragraph (b), must obtain a pilot school certificate by the end of the 24 months since the date of the issuance of its pilot school certificate. Otherwise, its pilot school certificate expires. Should it expire, the provisional pilot school cannot apply for another provisional pilot school certificate for 180 days. Section 141.27 also requires a pilot school to comply with training ability and quality standards established in § 141.5—that is, the pass rate of its applicants for practical tests and the number of graduates as described in B.5.a.

During the COVID-19 outbreak, many part 141 schools have ceased flight operations for their students. Some schools are utilizing online classroom instruction for the ground content of a course. However, not all part 141 schools may be capable of providing ground instruction online. The FAA has determined, under the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 outbreak, that it is appropriate to allow pilot schools additional time to meet the requirements of § 141.5.

Pilot school certificates with an expiration date of April 2020  89 through June 2020, are extended to December 31, 2020, subject to the following conditions for pilot schools taking advantage of this relief:

(1) Each part 141 pilot school must notify its responsible Flight Standards office that it will renew its pilot school certificate in accordance with this SFAR.

(2) In this notification, the part 141 pilot school must submit an acceptable plan that explains the method to regain currency that includes ensuring each instructor used for ground or flight training is current and proficient and evaluating students to determine if they are assigned to the proper stage of the training course and if additional training is necessary.

Section 21.197(c) states in part, “. . . a special flight permit with a continuing authorization may be issued for aircraft that may not meet applicable airworthiness requirements, but are capable of safe flight for the purpose of flying aircraft to a base where maintenance or alterations are to be performed . . .”

Due to the COVID-19 outbreak and restrictions on flights, airlines have significantly reduced capacity in the National Airspace System (NAS). As domestic airlines work to find space to park much of their fleets, airport operators are working to find locations to support temporary overflow aircraft. Because extensive overflow parking presents an extraordinarily unusual operational environment and may adversely affect safety, it is helpful during this time for operators to have the ability to ferry aircraft to different points of storage.

Relief for § 21.197(c) is necessary to allow certificate holders or operators, authorized to conduct operations under part 119 or under subpart K of part 91, to ferry aircraft that may not meet all airworthiness requirements, but are capable of safe flight, to a point of storage.

In order to fly an aircraft that may not meet applicable airworthiness requirements but is capable of safe flight to a point of storage, a special flight permit must be issued under § 21.197(a)(1) for each affected aircraft.

The number of aircraft that are and may become affected due to personnel and logistical issues resulting from the COVID-19 outbreak will place a significant burden on certificate holders and operators as well as the responsible FAA Flight Standards offices that oversee them. Further, issuance of individual special flight permits by the FAA in a timely manner may not be feasible.

Under the extraordinary circumstances presented by the COVID-19 outbreak, the FAA will allow a special flight permit with continuing authorization to be issued for the purpose of flying the aircraft to a point of storage through December 31, 2020. By allowing these permits to be issued with continuing authorization through December, a majority of operators will have the opportunity to move the bulk of their aircraft to a point of storage. The FAA expects the volume of aircraft that require movement to storage to return to a manageable level in 2021. Therefore, certificate or management specification holders that have a special flight permit with continuing authorization to conduct a ferry flight program may include the purpose of flying the aircraft to a point of storage in their program. To provide an acceptable level of safety, the certificate holder exercising this privilege must notify the responsible Flight Standards office each time the certificate holder uses it.

Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several analyses. First, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354), as codified in 5 U.S.C. 603 et seq., requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as codified in 19 U.S.C. Chapter 13, prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade Agreements Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), as codified in 2 U.S.C. Chapter 25, requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). The FAA also analyzes this regulation under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this final rule.

In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined this rule is not a significant regulatory action, as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. As notice and comment under 5 U.S.C. 553 are not required for this final rule, the regulatory flexibility analyses described in 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 regarding impacts on small entities are not required. This rule will not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector, by exceeding the threshold identified previously. In order to take advantage of the relief from this SFAR, this rule will result in a one-time collection of information for affected operators and pilot schools to submit plans to mitigate safety risks and ensure proficiencies.

The provisions in this final rule provide temporary relief to persons who are unable to meet certain requirements during the COVID-19 outbreak and prevents persons from encountering situations that would unnecessarily increase the risk of transmission of the virus through personal contact. Without this final rule, certain pilots who perform critical operations would not be able to continue flying due to their inability to satisfy certain training, recency, testing and checking requirements, or would attempt to satisfy requirements by means contrary to the national social distancing guidelines to avoid economic burdens resulting from non-compliance with FAA regulations. Providing accommodation for such pilots is especially important, as because of the COVID-19 outbreak, essential operations are likely to face disruption due to a decreased supply of pilots, including pilots who may need to self-quarantine due to exposure to the virus or because they are among the population that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has identified as high risk. Additionally, each month, a new group of pilots will be unavailable to perform essential operations because they cannot comply with certain training, recency, testing, or checking requirements during the course of the outbreak. To ensure the continuity of essential operations during the COVID-19 outbreak, this SFAR provides relief to certain individuals whose qualifications would otherwise lapse, thereby supporting the availability of qualified pilots to conduct essential operations. This relief allows operators to continue to use pilots and other crewmembers in support of essential operations. 90

Additionally, this relief applies to some operations conducted by pilots exercising private pilot privileges, provided the pilot has at least 500 hours of total time as a pilot of which 400 hours is as PIC with 50 of the PIC hours accrued in the last twelve calendar months. As previously discussed, the kinds of operations permitted include, but are not limited to, flights to transport essential goods and/or medical supplies to support public health needs. This SFAR also extends to pilots conducting charitable medical flights for a volunteer pilot organization pursuant to an exemption issued under part 11, provided the pilots continue to comply with the conditions and limitations of the exemption.

This rule also provides relief for U.S. military and civilian personnel assigned outside the United States in support of U.S. Armed Forces Operations. It allows the FAA Flight Standards offices to accept expired flight instructor certificates and inspection authorizations for renewals and expired airman written test reports for certain practical tests. This avoids penalizing U.S. personnel who are unable to meet the regulatory time limits of their flight instructor certificates, inspection authorizations, or airman written test reports because they are serving outside the United States in support of U.S. Armed Forces operations when they expire, giving affected U.S. personnel extra time to meet certain eligibility requirements in the current rules.

In addition to pilots, this rule provides temporary relief to other persons such as flight attendant crewmembers, aircraft dispatchers, flight engineers, mechanics, flight instructors, ground instructors, and schools. This relief extends to flight attendant crewmembers, check pilots, and flight instructors under subpart K of part 91, and part 125. Finally, this relief applies to operations conducted under part 107 by a person who holds a remote pilot certificate issued under part 107.

This SFAR will result in small costs for affected operators and pilot schools to notify the FAA and submit plans to mitigate safety risks and ensure proficiencies. In order to utilize the relief provided by this SFAR, an affected certificate holder or A125 LODA holder must provide a plan to its assigned FAA principal operations inspector. The plan is to contain a safety analysis and corresponding risk mitigations and methods to ensure that each crewmember remains adequately tested and currently proficient for each aircraft, duty position, and type of operation in which the person serves. Similarly, part 91 management specifications holders must also conduct a safety analysis and provide appropriate mitigations in a plan to their FAA principal inspector that addresses potential risks introduced by extending crewmember, check pilot, and flight instructor qualifications, training, and checking. The plan must ensure crewmembers remain adequately trained and currently proficient for each aircraft, crewmember position, and type of operation in which the crewmember serves.

In addition, pilot schools or provisional pilot schools taking advantage of this relief will incur small costs to notify their responsible Flight Standards offices that they will renew certificates in accordance with this SFAR and submit a plan that explains the methods to regain currency and to ensure the training of their instructors and students is current and proficient.

The FAA expects these plans to contain existing information maintained by affected operators and pilot schools. The FAA does not expect these plans to be burdensome.

Therefore, the FAA expects the benefits of this action exceed the costs since it provides immediate relief to enable operators to continue to use pilots and other crewmembers in support of essential operations. As a result, this SFAR will reduce disruption to the continuity of essential services in response to the COVID-19 outbreak. This SFAR also provides immediate relief from certain duration and renewal requirements to reduce unnecessary risk of exposure and to assure persons that they will not endure economic burdens due to non-compliance with certain regulations.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), in 5 U.S.C. 603, requires an agency to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis describing impacts on small entities whenever an agency is required by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for any proposed rule. Similarly, 5 U.S.C. 604 requires an agency to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis when an agency issues a final rule under 5 U.S.C. 553, after being required by that section or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking. The FAA found good cause to forgo notice and comment and any delay in the effective date for this rule. As notice and comment under 5 U.S.C. 553 are not required in this situation, the regulatory flexibility analyses described in 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 are not required.

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to this Act, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.

The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this final rule and determined that its purpose has a legitimate domestic objective to promote the continuity and safety of U.S. civil aviation from risks of the COVID-19 outbreak while supporting essential services necessary to fight the outbreak. Therefore, the FAA has determined this final rule complies with the Trade Agreements Act of 1979.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155 million in lieu of $100 million.

This final rule does not contain such a mandate. Therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public.

As previously discussed, in order to utilize the temporary relief provided by this SFAR, an affected certificate holder or A125 LODA holder must provide a plan to its assigned FAA principal operations inspector. The plan is to contain a safety analysis and corresponding risk mitigations and methods to ensure that each crewmember remains adequately tested and currently proficient for each aircraft, duty position, and type of operation in which the person serves. Part 91 management specifications holders must also conduct a safety analysis and provide appropriate mitigations in an acceptable plan to their FAA principal inspector that addresses potential risks introduced by extending crewmember, check pilot, and flight instructor qualifications, training, and checking. The plan must ensure crewmembers remain adequately trained and currently proficient for each aircraft, crewmember position, and type of operation in which the crewmember serves.

The FAA estimates that of the 69 part 125 certificate holders and A125 LODA holders, all would avail themselves of the relief provided by this SFAR, and therefore would be required to provide mitigation plans to their assigned principal operations inspector. The FAA further estimates that each respondent would spend two hours preparing and submitting its plan, for a total of 138 hours. The FAA believes the additional paperwork burden would be borne by the director of operations. At $51 per hour multiplied by 138 total hours, the FAA estimates the total burden to part 125 certificate holders and A125 LODA holders to be $7,038. 91

In addition, each pilot school or provisional pilot school taking advantage of this relief must notify its responsible Flight Standards office that it will renew its pilot school certificate, or seek a pilot school certificate if currently a provisional pilot school certificate holder, in accordance with this SFAR. Each pilot school or provisional pilot school must submit a plan that includes an explanation of the methods to regain currency and to ensure its instructors are current and proficient and how students will be evaluated to determine if they are assigned to the proper stage of the training course and if additional training is necessary. The FAA estimates that all 10 provisional pilot schools and 57 pilot schools would request this relief, and would therefore be required to submit a plan to their responsible Flight Standards offices. The FAA further estimates that the preparation and submission of these plans would take one hour, for a total of 67 hours. The FAA believes the chief flight instructor will develop and submit the plan. At $27 per hour multiplied by 67 hours, the FAA estimates the total burden to part 141 pilot schools and provisional pilot schools to be $1,809. 92

The combined burden, for both part 125 certificate holders and A125 LODA holders and part 141 pilot schools and provisional pilot schools is $7,038 + $1,809 = $8,847.

The FAA estimates that it would require an Aviation Safety Inspector (ASI) one hour to review and analyze a plan submitted by a part 125 certificate holder or A125 LODA holder. With 69 part 125 certificate holders or A125 LODA holders estimated to submit a plan multiplied by the hourly wage of a GS-13 FAA ASI, the resulting burden to the FAA is estimated to be $6,860 (69 responses × 1 hour × $99.42 = $6,860). 93

The FAA estimates that it would require an ASI 30 minutes to review and accept a plan submitted by a part 141 pilot school or provisional pilot school certificate holder and place it in the school's file. With 67 total pilot schools and provisional pilot schools estimated to submit a plan multiplied by the hourly wage of a GS-13 FAA ASI, the resulting burden to the FAA is estimated to be $3,331 (67 responses × 0.5 hours × $99.42 = $3,331).

The combined burden to the FAA is therefore $6,860 + 3,331 = $10,191.

As provided under 5 CFR 1320.13, Emergency Processing, DOT is requesting emergency processing for this temporary collection of information as specified in the Paperwork Reduction Act and its implementing regulations. DOT cannot reasonably comply with normal clearance procedures because the information is necessary to provide temporary relief to persons who have been unable to meet certain requirements during the COVID-19 outbreak. Without this information, certain individuals will not be able to continue exercising privileges in support of essential operations due to their inability to satisfy certain training, recent experience, testing, and checking requirements. Additionally, other individuals may—to the extent possible given closures—attempt to satisfy requirements contrary to the national social distancing guidelines solely to avoid economic burdens resulting from non-compliance with FAA regulations. The use of normal clearance procedures will result in increased economic burden, disruption to critical aviation operations, and increased risk of exposure during this public health emergency. Due to the pressing considerations associated with the COVID-19 outbreak, it is not practicable to afford ninety days of public comment on this collection of information. Therefore, FAA is requesting OMB approval of this temporary collection of information upon the date that this SFAR is placed on public inspection at the Federal Register . Upon OMB approval of its Emergency clearance request, FAA will follow the normal clearance procedures for the information collection associated with this SFAR.

In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) to the maximum extent practicable. On April 3, 2020, ICAO issued a State Letter (AN 11/55-20/50) to address operational measures States are taking to ensure safe operations during the COVID-19 outbreak. ICAO recognized the varying needs of the States to provide relief and encouraged States to be flexible in their approaches for relief while also adhering to their obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation. During this period of relief, ICAO is paying particular attention to the SARPs related to certificates and licenses. ICAO has established a process for States to file temporary differences through a COVID-19 Contingency-Related Differences (CCRDs) sub-system, which is accessible through ICAO's Continuous Monitoring Approach (CMA) Online Framework of Electronic Filing of Differences (EFOD) dashboard that States use normally to file differences related to the Annexes. When States are submitting their differences, ICAO is requiring the State also to indicate whether or not it will recognize the differences of other States. FAA has already filed temporary differences with some of the relief it has given through exemptions under 14 CFR part 11 and has indicated it will recognize other States' differences unless the FAA deems safety is being compromised. ICAO tentatively plans to maintain the CCRD sub-system through March 31, 2021.

The FAA has reviewed the corresponding ICAO SARPs and has identified the following differences with these proposed regulations. In Annex 1, section 1.2.4.4.1, a medical assessment can be extended at the FAA's discretion up to 45 days. With this final rule, the FAA is extending the validity period up to three calendar months for pilots with expiring medicals between March 2020 and May 2020. As a result, the FAA will file a temporary difference with ICAO.

In Annex 6, Part 2, Section 3.9.4.2, a PIC is required to have made three takeoffs and landings within the preceding ninety days on the same type of airplane or in a flight simulator prior to serving as a PIC in that airplane. With this final rule, the FAA is extending the look-back period by sixty days for PICs conducting operations under part 91, subpart N, and part 125 operations. As a result, the FAA will file a temporary difference with ICAO.

In Annex 6, Part 2, Section 3.9.4.3, an SIC is required to have made three takeoffs and landings within the preceding ninety days on the same type of airplane or in a flight simulator prior to serving as a SIC in that airplane. With this final rule, the FAA is extending the look-back period by sixty days for SICs conducting operations under part 91, subpart N, and part 125 operations. As a result, the FAA will file a temporary difference with ICAO.

Certificate holders or operators may dispatch or release flights and pilots and crewmembers may operate outside of the United States under this SFAR, unless otherwise prohibited by a foreign country. For international operations where pilots and crewmembers will exercise the relief identified here, they must have access to this SFAR when outside the United States. In accordance with the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention), and its Annexes, pilots and crewmembers must present a copy of this SFAR for inspection upon request by a foreign civil aviation authority.

The FAA has analyzed this action under Executive Order 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions (44 FR 1957, January 4, 1979), and DOT Order 5610.1C, Paragraph 16. Executive Order 12114 requires the FAA to be informed of environmental considerations and take those considerations into account when making decisions on major Federal actions that could have environmental impacts anywhere beyond the borders of the United States. The FAA has determined that this action is exempt pursuant to Section 2-5(a)(i) of Executive Order 12114 because it does not have the potential for a significant effect on the environment outside the United States.

In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 8-6(c), FAA has prepared a memorandum for the record stating the reason(s) for this determination and has placed it in the docket for this rulemaking.

The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, does not have federalism implications.

The FAA analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under the Executive order and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. As described in Section IV. F., International Compatibility, the FAA is working with ICAO and other foreign CAAs on the kind of relief provided by this SFAR. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this action would have no effect on international regulatory cooperation. The provisions in this final rule provide temporary relief to persons who are unable to meet certain requirements during the COVID-19 outbreak and prevents persons from encountering situations that would unnecessarily increase the risk of transmission of the virus through personal contact.

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

An electronic copy of a rulemaking document my be obtained by using the internet—

1. Search the Federal eRulemaking Portal ( https://www.regulations.gov/ );

2. Visit the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or

3. Access the Government Printing Office's web page at https://www.govinfo.gov/.

Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by notice, amendment, or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9677.

The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document, may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble. To find out more about SBREFA, visit https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

In the Federal Register of April 1, 2019 (84 FR 12088), FDA issued a final rule to classify posterior cervical screw systems into class II (special controls) and to continue to require a premarket notification (510(k)) to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device (the final rule). The final rule, which is codified at 21 CFR 888.3075, became effective May 1, 2019.

In compliance with section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (Pub. L. 104-121, as amended by Pub. L. 110-28), FDA is making this SECG available to explain the actions that a small entity must take to comply with the final rule.

This level 2 guidance is being issued consistent with our good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115(c)(2)). The SECG represents the current thinking of FDA on this topic. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

The guidance refers to previously approved FDA collections of information. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subparts A through D, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0625.

Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the SECG may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm. This guidance document is also available at https://www.regulations.gov. Persons unable to download an electronic copy of “Classification of Posterior Cervical Screw Systems” may send an email request to CDRH-Guidance@fda.hhs.gov to receive an electronic copy of the document. Please use the document number 20008 and complete title to identify the guidance you are requesting.

I. Purpose

On March 13, 2020, President Trump issued the Proclamation on Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Outbreak  1 and by separate letter made a determination, under section 501(b) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq., that a national emergency exists nationwide beginning March 1, 2020, as the result of the COVID-19 outbreak (the National Emergency). 2 As a result of that determination, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) issued emergency declarations for every state, territory, and possession of the United States. 3

As a result of the National Emergency, participants and beneficiaries covered by group health plans, disability or other employee welfare benefit plans, and employee pension benefit plans may encounter problems in exercising their health coverage portability and continuation coverage rights, or in filing or perfecting their benefit claims. Recognizing the numerous challenges participants and beneficiaries already face as a result of the National Emergency, it is important that the Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor, Internal Revenue Service, and Department of the Treasury (the Agencies) take steps to minimize the possibility of individuals losing benefits because of a failure to comply with certain pre-established timeframes. Similarly, the Agencies recognize that affected group health plans may have difficulty in complying with certain notice obligations.

Accordingly, under the authority of section 518 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and section 7508A(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code), the Agencies are extending certain timeframes otherwise applicable to group health plans, disability and other welfare plans, pension plans, and their participants and beneficiaries under ERISA and the Code. 4

The Agencies believe that such relief is immediately needed to preserve and protect the benefits of participants and beneficiaries in all employee benefit plans across the United States during the National Emergency. Accordingly, the Agencies have determined, pursuant to section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A), (B) and 553(d), that there is good cause for granting the relief provided by this document effective immediately upon publication, and that notice and public participation may result in undue delay and, therefore, be contrary to the public interest. 5

This document has been reviewed by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which has advised the Agencies that HHS concurs with the relief specified in this document. 6 HHS has advised the Agencies that HHS will exercise enforcement discretion to adopt a temporary policy of measured enforcement to extend similar timeframes otherwise applicable to non-Federal governmental group health plans and health insurance issuers offering coverage in connection with a group health plan, and their participants, beneficiaries and enrollees under applicable provisions of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act). HHS has advised the Agencies that HHS encourages plan sponsors of non-Federal governmental group health plans to provide relief similar to that specified in this document to participants and beneficiaries, and encourages states and health insurance issuers offering coverage in connection with a group health plan to enforce and operate, respectively, in a manner consistent with the relief provided in this document. HHS has also advised the Agencies that HHS will not consider a state to have failed to substantially enforce the applicable provisions of title XXVII of the PHS Act if the state takes such an approach.

The relief provided by this document supplements other COVID-19 guidance issued by the Agencies, which can be accessed on the internet at: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/employers-and-advisers/plan-administration-and-compliance/disaster-relief and https://www.irs.gov/coronavirus.

Title I of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) provides portability of health coverage by, among other things, requiring special enrollment rights into group health plans upon the loss of eligibility of coverage. ERISA section 701, Code section 9801, 29 CFR 2590.701-6, 26 CFR 54.9801-6. Title X of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) permits qualified beneficiaries who lose coverage under a group health plan to elect continuation health coverage. ERISA section 601, Code section 4980B, 26 CFR 54.4980B-1. Section 503 of ERISA and 29 CFR 2560.503-1 require employee benefit plans subject to Title I of ERISA to establish and maintain reasonable procedures governing the determination and appeal of claims for benefits under the plan. Section 2719 of the PHS Act, incorporated into ERISA by ERISA section 715, and into the Code by Code section 9815, imposes additional rights and obligations with respect to internal claims and appeals and external review for non-grandfathered group health plans and health insurance issuers offering non-grandfathered group or individual health insurance coverage. See also 29 CFR 2590.715-2719 and 26 CFR 54.9815-2719. All of the foregoing provisions include timing requirements for certain acts in connection with employee benefit plans, some of which are being modified by this document.

In general, HIPAA requires a special enrollment period in certain circumstances, including when an employee or dependent loses eligibility for any group health plan or other health insurance coverage in which the employee or the employee's dependents were previously enrolled (including coverage under Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program), and when a person becomes a dependent of an eligible employee by birth, marriage, adoption, or placement for adoption. ERISA section 701(f), Code section 9801(f), 29 CFR 2590.701-6, and 26 CFR 54.9801-6. Generally, group health plans must allow such individuals to enroll in the group health plan if they are otherwise eligible and if enrollment is requested within 30 days of the occurrence of the event (or within 60 days, in the case of the special enrollment rights added by the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009). ERISA section 701(f), Code section 9801(f), 29 CFR 2590.701-6, and 26 CFR 54.9801-6.

The COBRA continuation coverage provisions generally provide a qualified beneficiary a period of at least 60 days to elect COBRA continuation coverage under a group health plan. ERISA section 605 and Code section 4980B(f)(5). Plans are required to allow payment of premiums in monthly installments, and plans cannot require payment of premiums before 45 days after the day of the initial COBRA election. ERISA section 602(3) and Code section 4980B(f)(2)(C). COBRA continuation coverage may be terminated for failure to pay premiums timely. ERISA section 602(2)(C) and Code section 4980B(f)(2)(B)(iii). Under the COBRA rules, a premium is considered paid timely if it is made not later than 30 days after the first day of the period for which payment is being made. ERISA section 602(2)(C), Code section 4980B(f)(2)(B)(iii), and 26 CFR 54.4980B-8 Q&A-5(a). Notice requirements prescribe time periods for employers to notify the plan of certain qualifying events and for individuals to notify the plan of certain qualifying events or a determination of disability. Notice requirements also prescribe a time period for plans to notify qualified beneficiaries of their rights to elect COBRA continuation coverage. ERISA section 606, Code section 4980B(f)(6), and 29 CFR 2590.606-3.

Section 503 of ERISA and 29 CFR 2560.503-1, as well as section 2719 of the PHS Act, incorporated into ERISA by ERISA section 715 and 29 CFR 2590.715-2719, and into the Code by Code section 9815 and 26 CFR 54.9815-2719, require ERISA-covered employee benefit plans and non-grandfathered group health plans and health insurance issuers offering non-grandfathered group or individual health insurance coverage to establish and maintain a procedure governing the filing and initial disposition of benefit claims, and to provide claimants with a reasonable opportunity to appeal an adverse benefit determination to an appropriate named fiduciary. Plans may not have provisions that unduly inhibit or hamper the initiation or processing of claims for benefits. Further, group health plans and disability plans must provide claimants at least 180 days following receipt of an adverse benefit determination to appeal (60 days in the case of pension plans and other welfare benefit plans). 29 CFR 2560.503-1(h)(2)(i) and (h)(3)(i), 29 CFR 2590.715-2719(b)(2)(ii)(C), and 26 CFR 54.9815-2719(b)(2)(ii)(C).

PHS Act section 2719, incorporated into ERISA by ERISA section 715 and into the Code by Code section 9815, sets out standards for external review that apply to non-grandfathered group health plans and health insurance issuers offering non-grandfathered group or individual health insurance coverage and provides for either a state external review process or a Federal external review process. Standards for external review processes and timeframes for submitting claims to the independent reviewer for group health plans or health insurance issuers may vary depending on whether a plan uses a State or Federal external review process. For plans or issuers that use the Federal external review process, the process must allow at least four months after the receipt of a notice of an adverse benefit determination or final internal adverse benefit determination for a request for an external review to be filed. 29 CFR 2590.715-2719(d)(2)(i) and 26 CFR 54.9815-2719(d)(2)(i). The Federal external review process also provides for a preliminary review of a request for external review. The regulation provides that if such request is not complete, the Federal external review process must provide for a notification that describes the information or materials needed to make the request complete, and the plan or issuer must allow a claimant to perfect the request for external review within the four-month filing period or within the 48-hour period following the receipt of the notification, whichever is later. 29 CFR 2590.715-2719(d)(2)(ii)(B) and 26 CFR 54.9815-2719(d)(2)(ii)(B).

Subject to the statutory duration limitation in ERISA section 518 and Code section 7508A, 7 all group health plans, disability and other employee welfare benefit plans, and employee pension benefit plans subject to ERISA or the Code must disregard the period from March 1, 2020 until sixty (60) days after the announced end of the National Emergency or such other date announced by the Agencies in a future notification (the “Outbreak Period”)  8 for all plan participants, beneficiaries, qualified beneficiaries, or claimants wherever located in determining the following periods and dates—

(1) The 30-day period (or 60-day period, if applicable) to request special enrollment under ERISA section 701(f) and Code section 9801(f),

(2) The 60-day election period for COBRA continuation coverage under ERISA section 605 and Code section 4980B(f)(5), 9

(3) The date for making COBRA premium payments pursuant to ERISA section 602(2)(C) and (3) and Code section 4980B(f)(2)(B)(iii) and (C), 10

(4) The date for individuals to notify the plan of a qualifying event or determination of disability under ERISA section 606(a)(3) and Code section 4980B(f)(6)(C),

(5) The date within which individuals may file a benefit claim under the plan's claims procedure pursuant to 29 CFR 2560.503-1,

(6) The date within which claimants may file an appeal of an adverse benefit determination under the plan's claims procedure pursuant to 29 CFR 2560.503-1(h),

(7) The date within which claimants may file a request for an external review after receipt of an adverse benefit determination or final internal adverse benefit determination pursuant to 29 CFR 2590.715-2719(d)(2)(i) and 26 CFR 54.9815-2719(d)(2)(i), and

(8) The date within which a claimant may file information to perfect a request for external review upon a finding that the request was not complete pursuant to 29 CFR 2590.715-2719(d)(2)(ii) and 26 CFR 54.9815-2719(d)(2)(ii).

With respect to group health plans, and their sponsors and administrators, the Outbreak Period shall be disregarded when determining the date for providing a COBRA election notice under ERISA section 606(c) and Code section 4980B(f)(6)(D).

The Agencies will continue to monitor the effects of the Outbreak and may provide additional relief as warranted.

The following examples illustrate the timeframe for extensions required by this document. An assumed end date for the National Emergency was needed to make the examples clear and understandable. Accordingly, the Examples assume that the National Emergency ends on April 30, 2020, with the Outbreak Period ending on June 29, 2020 (the 60th day after the end of the National Emergency). To the extent there are different Outbreak Period end dates for different parts of the country, the Agencies will issue additional guidance regarding the application of the relief in this document.

Example 1 (Electing COBRA). (i) Facts. Individual A works for Employer X and participates in X's group health plan. Due to the National Emergency, Individual A experiences a qualifying event for COBRA purposes as a result of a reduction of hours below the hours necessary to meet the group health plan's eligibility requirements and has no other coverage. Individual A is provided a COBRA election notice on April 1, 2020. What is the deadline for A to elect COBRA?

(ii) Conclusion. In Example 1, Individual A is eligible to elect COBRA coverage under Employer X's plan. The Outbreak Period is disregarded for purposes of determining Individual A's COBRA election period. The last day of Individual A's COBRA election period is 60 days after June 29, 2020, which is August 28, 2020.

Example 2 (Special enrollment period). (i) Facts. Individual B is eligible for, but previously declined participation in, her employer-sponsored group health plan. On March 31, 2020, Individual B gave birth and would like to enroll herself and the child into her employer's plan; however, open enrollment does not begin until November 15. When may Individual B exercise her special enrollment rights?

(ii) Conclusion. In Example 2, the Outbreak Period is disregarded for purposes of determining Individual B's special enrollment period. Individual B and her child qualify for special enrollment into her employer's plan as early as the date of the child's birth. Individual B may exercise her special enrollment rights for herself and her child into her employer's plan until 30 days after June 29, 2020, which is July 29, 2020, provided that she pays the premiums for any period of coverage.

Example 3 (COBRA premium payments). (i) Facts. On March 1, 2020, Individual C was receiving COBRA continuation coverage under a group health plan. More than 45 days had passed since Individual C had elected COBRA. Monthly premium payments are due by the first of the month. The plan does not permit qualified beneficiaries longer than the statutory 30-day grace period for making premium payments. Individual C made a timely February payment, but did not make the March payment or any subsequent payments during the Outbreak Period. As of July 1, Individual C has made no premium payments for March, April, May, or June. Does Individual C lose COBRA coverage, and if so for which month(s)?

(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 3, the Outbreak Period is disregarded for purposes of determining whether monthly COBRA premium installment payments are timely. Premium payments made by 30 days after June 29, 2020, which is July 29, 2020, for March, April, May, and June 2020, are timely, and Individual C is entitled to COBRA continuation coverage for these months if she timely makes payment. Under the terms of the COBRA statute, premium payments are timely if made within 30 days from the date they are first due. In calculating the 30-day period, however, the Outbreak Period is disregarded, and payments for March, April, May, and June are all deemed to be timely if they are made within 30 days after the end of the Outbreak Period. Accordingly, premium payments for four months ( i.e., March, April, May, and June) are all due by July 29, 2020. Individual C is eligible to receive coverage under the terms of the plan during this interim period even though some or all of Individual C's premium payments may not be received until July 29, 2020. Since the due dates for Individual C's premiums would be postponed and Individual C's payment for premiums would be retroactive during the initial COBRA election period, Individual C's insurer or plan may not deny coverage, and may make retroactive payments for benefits and services received by the participant during this time.

Example 4 (COBRA premium payments). (i) Facts. Same facts as Example 3. By July 29, 2020, Individual C made a payment equal to two months' premiums. For how long does Individual C have COBRA continuation coverage?

(ii) Conclusion. Individual C is entitled to COBRA continuation coverage for March and April of 2020, the two months for which timely premium payments were made, and Individual C is not entitled to COBRA continuation coverage for any month after April 2020. Benefits and services provided by the group health plan ( e.g., doctors' visits or filled prescriptions) that occurred on or before April 30, 2020 would be covered under the terms of the plan. The plan would not be obligated to cover benefits or services that occurred after April 2020.

Example 5 (Claims for medical treatment under a group health plan). (i) Facts. Individual D is a participant in a group health plan. On March 1, 2020, Individual D received medical treatment for a condition covered under the plan, but a claim relating to the medical treatment was not submitted until April 1, 2021. Under the plan, claims must be submitted within 365 days of the participant's receipt of the medical treatment. Was Individual D's claim timely?

(ii) Conclusion. Yes. For purposes of determining the 365-day period applicable to Individual D's claim, the Outbreak Period is disregarded. Therefore, Individual D's last day to submit a claim is 365 days after June 29, 2020, which is June 29, 2021, so Individual D's claim was timely.

Example 6 (Internal appeal—disability plan). (i) Facts. Individual E received a notification of an adverse benefit determination from Individual E's disability plan on January 28, 2020. The notification advised Individual E that there are 180 days within which to file an appeal. What is Individual E's appeal deadline?

(ii) Conclusion. When determining the 180-day period within which Individual E's appeal must be filed, the Outbreak Period is disregarded. Therefore, Individual E's last day to submit an appeal is 148 days (180−32 days following January 28 to March 1) after June 29, 2020, which is November 24, 2020.

Example 7 (Internal appeal—employee pension benefit plan). (i) Facts. Individual F received a notice of adverse benefit determination from Individual F's 401(k) plan on April 15, 2020. The notification advised Individual F that there are 60 days within which to file an appeal. What is Individual F's appeal deadline?

(ii) Conclusion. When determining the 60-day period within which Individual F's appeal must be filed, the Outbreak Period is disregarded. Therefore, Individual F's last day to submit an appeal is 60 days after June 29, 2020, which is August 28, 2020.

On April 30, 2003 (68 FR 23030-23034), the Department of Defense published a final rule titled “TRICARE Program; Eligibility and Payment Procedures for Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services Beneficiaries Age 65 and Over,” which amended 32 CFR part 199.

On page 23032, an amendatory instruction requested to amend § 199.8 by “redesignating paragraph (c)(5) as (c)(6) and the second paragraph (c)(4) as (c)(5).”

The wording of this amendatory instruction led to a codification error which is still present in the CFR.

In 32 CFR 199.8, paragraphs (c)(5) and (c)(6) contain identical text. Only one of the paragraphs should remain in the CFR. Therefore, DoD is publishing this technical amendment to remove paragraph (c)(6) from 32 CFR 199.8.

It has been determined that publication of this CFR amendment for public comment is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is correcting a technical error.

This rule is not significant under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” Therefore, E.O. 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” does not apply.

Accordingly, 32 CFR part 199 is amended as follows:

Charcot Marie Tooth Association and Therapies for Inherited Neuropathies of Trappe, MD, notified the Coast Guard that from 7:45 a.m. to 9:15 a.m. on June 6, 2020, it will be conducting the swim portion of the Oxford Funathlon in the Tred Avon River along a 1200-meter course that starts at the ferry dock in Bellevue, MD, and finishes at the Tred Avon Yacht Club in Oxford, MD. In response, on February 14, 2020, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Special Local Regulation; Tred Avon River, Between Bellevue and Oxford, MD” (85 FR 8504). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this fireworks display. During the comment period that ended March 16, 2020, we received no comments.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the swim will be a safety concern for anyone intending to participate in this event and for vessels that operate within specified waters of the Tred Avon River. The purpose of this rule is to protect event participants, non-participants, and transiting vessels in the regulated area before, during, and after the scheduled event.

As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published February 14, 2020. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

This rule establishes special local regulations from 6:45 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. on June 6, 2020. The regulated area will cover all navigable waters of the Tred Avon River, from shoreline to shoreline, within an area bounded on the east by a line drawn from latitude 38°42′25″ N, longitude 076°10′45″ W, thence south to latitude 38°41′37″ N, longitude 076°10′26″ W, and bounded on the west by a line drawn from latitude 38°41′58″ N, longitude 076°11′04″ W, thence to latitude 38°41′25″ N, longitude 076°10′49″ W, thence east to latitude 38°41′25″ N, longitude 076°10′30″ W, located at Oxford, MD. The duration of the rule and size of the regulated area are to ensure the safety of life on these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 7:45 a.m. to 9:15 a.m. open water swim. The COTP and the Coast Guard Patrol Commander (PATCOM) will have authority to forbid and control the movement of all vessels and persons, including event participants, in the regulated area.

Except for Oxford Funathlon participants and vessels already at berth, a vessel or person will be required to get permission from the COTP or PATCOM before entering the regulated area. Vessel operators will be able to request permission to enter and transit through the regulated area by contacting the PATCOM on VHF-FM channel 16. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit the regulated area once the PATCOM deems it safe to do so. A person or vessel not registered with the event sponsor as a participant or assigned as official patrols would be considered a non-participant. Official Patrols are any vessel assigned or approved by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region with a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign.

If permission is granted by the COTP or PATCOM, a person or vessel will be allowed to enter the regulated area or pass directly through the regulated area as instructed. Vessels will be required to operate at a safe speed that minimizes wake while within the regulated area. Official patrol vessels will direct non-participants while within the regulated area.

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

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, time of day and duration of the regulated area, which will impact a small designated area of the Tred Avon River for 3.5 hours. The Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the status of the regulated area. Moreover, the rule will allow vessels to seek permission to enter the regulated area, and vessel traffic will be able to safely transit the regulated area once the PATCOM deems it safe to do so.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

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

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

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

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

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves implementation of regulations within 33 CFR part 100 applicable to organized marine events on the navigable waters of the United States that could negatively impact the safety of waterway users and shore side activities in the event area lasting for 3.5 hours. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.

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

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

On December 19, 2019, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Hackensack River, Jersey City, NJ in the Federal Register (84 FR 69687). No comments were received in response to the NPRM.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 499. The Route 1 & 9 Bridge at mile 1.8 over the Hackensack River at Jersey City, New Jersey, has a vertical clearance of 35 feet at mean high water and 40 feet at mean low water. Horizontal clearance is approximately 200 feet. The waterway users include recreational and commercial vessels including tugboat/barge combinations.

The Route 7 Bridge at mile 3.1 over the Hackensack River at Jersey City, New Jersey, has a vertical clearance of 35 feet at mean high water and 40 feet at mean low water. Horizontal clearance is approximately 158 feet. The waterway users include recreational and commercial vessels including tugboat/barge combinations.

The existing regulation, 33 CFR 117.5, requires both bridges open on signal at all times. NJDOT has requested that overnight hours between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. be modified to two hours advance notice. This rule change will allow for more efficient and economic operation of the bridge while meeting the reasonable needs of navigation.

The bridge logs show that between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m., the Route 1 & 9 Bridge had 27 annual openings in 2017, 12 annual openings in 2018, and 16 annual openings in 2019. During the subject hours, the Route 7 Bridge had 16 annual openings in 2017, 1 annual opening in 2018, and 0 annual openings in 2019.

The Coast Guard provided 60 days for comment regarding this rule and no comments were received.

There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

The final rule provides both Route 1 & 9 and Route 7 Bridges shall open on signal; except that, from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., the draw shall open on signal if at least two hours advance notice is given by calling the number posted at the bridge. It is the Coast Guard's opinion that the rule meets the reasonable needs of marine traffic.

The Coast Guard has developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protesters.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

The Coast Guard believes this rule is not a significant regulatory action. The bridge will still open for all vessel traffic after a two-hour advance notice is given during overnight periods. We believe that this change to the drawbridge operation regulations at 33 CFR 117.723 will meet the reasonable needs of navigation.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The bridges provide 35 feet of vertical clearance at mean high water that should accommodate all the present vessel traffic except deep draft vessels. The bridge will continue to open on signal for any vessel, except between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m., when a two-hour advance notice will be required. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

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

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

This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

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

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series) which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The Coast Guard has determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges and is categorically excluded from further review, under paragraph L49, of Chapter 3, Table 3-1 of the U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementation Procedures.

Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum for the Record are required for this rule.

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

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. This safety zone must be established by April 27, 2020 and we lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing this rule. The NPRM process would delay the establishment of the safety zone until after the date of the raw water intake construction and compromise public safety.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying this rule would be contrary to the public interest because immediate action is necessary to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with raw water intake work, which could pose a risk to the operation and waterways users if the normal vessel traffic were to interfere with the work. Possible hazards include risks of injury or death from near or actual contact among working vessels and mariners traversing through the safety zone.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with raw water intake construction starting April 27, 2020, will be a safety concern for anyone within a 20 foot radius of the work barge. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the construction is being done.

This rule establishes a safety zone from 7 a.m. on April 27, 2020 until 7 p.m. on May 8, 2020. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 20 feet of the work barge being used by personnel for the construction of the raw water intake. Located at mile marker 76.6 on the Monongahela River 220 feet from the opposite bank. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters while the construction is being done. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh. Persons and vessels seeking entry into this safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or by telephone at (412) 221-0807. Persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful instructions of the COTP or a designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the enforcement period for the safety zone as well as any changes in the schedule through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs) as appropriate.

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

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

This regulatory action determination is based on size, duration, and location of the safety zone. This rule will impact a section of the Monongahela River from April 27, 2020 through May 8, 2020.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

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

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone that will prohibit entry within 20 feet of a work barge being used by personnel to construct a raw water intake. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

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

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

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

The background for this action is discussed in detail in EPA's December 3, 2019 proposal (84 FR 66098). In that document, we proposed approval of SIP revisions that address the interstate transport of air pollution requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The SIP revisions were submitted by the state of New Mexico and the City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County on October 10, 2018 and October 4, 2018, respectively. In today's action, we are approving the transport SIP for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

We received one comment on the proposed rulemaking. The full text of the comment is available for review in the docket for this rulemaking. The comment was submitted by the Sierra Club (on behalf of itself and the Center for Biological Diversity). To best address the comment, we have broken the comment down into two parts (Comment 1 and Comment 2). We have responded to both parts of the comment below and provided a more detailed response in the Response to Comment Technical Support Document included in our docket.

Comment #1: The commenters assert that oil and gas emissions in New Mexico are not fairly represented in EPA modeling and therefore both air quality at downwind receptors and the impact of New Mexico's contribution to projected nonattainment and maintenance areas in other states are underestimated. The commenter points to increased production particularly in the Permian Basin as evidence that EPA's emissions estimates are too low.

Response #1: EPA disagrees with the claims made by the commenters that the oil and gas exploration and production sector (Oil and Gas E&P) emissions in New Mexico are not adequately represented in EPA modeling. EPA and states go to great lengths to ensure that emission inventories and emission projections are of the highest quality. The efforts to provide for quality assurance, quality control and public input for the emission inventories that were utilized in the modeling for these SIP revisions are described in detail in the Response to Comments Technical Support Document for this action. Our review of the total 2017 projected Oil and Gas E&P emissions utilized in the 2017 Future Year modeling, more recent Oil and Gas E&P emissions projections, and the 2014 National Emission Inventory (NEI) of Oil and Gas E&P emissions in New Mexico indicate that the 2017 projected emissions used in the 2017 Future Year modeling were overstated rather than understated as characterized by the reviewer. This overestimation of the projected emissions inventory could have also resulted in an overestimation by the air quality model of the downwind impact of emissions from New Mexico's Oil and Gas E&P to other states in the 2017 Future Year modeling. Thus, contrary to the commenters' concern, EPA's estimate of New Mexico's 2017 modeled impacts on other states is likely conservative and supports EPA's conclusion that impacts from emissions originating in New Mexico on other states are below 0.75 parts per billion (ppb) in 2019-2020.

EPA agrees that there has been increase in Oil and Gas E&P activity in New Mexico since 2011. Emissions associated with the sector, however, do not have a linear relationship with exploration and production related activities. As Oil and Gas E&P have grown in New Mexico, there have been, and continue to be, simultaneous improvements in emission reduction technology and new regulatory control requirements. These two competing factors were considered in emissions projection used in EPA's 2017 and 2023 modeling pertaining to interstate transport. Selected source categories reflect reductions in volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NO X ) that occur at reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE) due to controls from both the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). The upgrades in emissions technology necessary to comply with these rules generally bring co-benefits of reductions in VOCs and NO X emissions. The areas in New Mexico which experienced a growth in the Oil and Gas E&P such as the Permian Basin tend to use newer equipment that meets the lower RICE NESHAP and RICE NSPS requirements. Other NO X emitters in Oil and Gas E&P are also subject to regulations and emission control technologies which are being installed over time. See Response to Comment Technical Support Document for this action for further explanation.

Projection of emissions is a stepwise process starting with a base year emissions level, followed by application of factors for retirement, growth and controls. EPA developed the 2017 emission projections of Oil and Gas E&P based on information available in 2014-2015. The emission projection from 2011 to 2017 used in the modeling for the SIP revision shows that if the emissions were not subject to controls, the emissions from Oil and Gas E&P in New Mexico would have increased 28.5%. However, emission control technologies implemented between 2011 and 2017 reduced projected 2017 emissions by 21.4%. As a result, the net projected NO X emission rate from Oil and Gas E&P for 2017 increased only 7.1% despite the activity growth in the sector.

A stepwise emission projections process was also completed in 2016-2017 when developing the 2023 modeling emissions for Oil and Gas E&P inventory. Like when developing the 2017 emission projections, EPA used the most recent data in development of the 2023 modeling emission inventory, therefore there were differences in growth projections between the 2017 model inventory and 2023 model emission inventories, (like updated growth projections for 2023 model emission inventory). The emission projection from 2011 to 2023 used in EPA's modeling shows that if the emissions were not subject to controls, the emissions from Oil and Gas E&P operations in New Mexico would have increased 27.8%. However, closures in New Mexico Oil and Gas E&P reduced the 2023 projected emissions increase by 2.8%. Emission control technologies implemented between 2011 and 2023 also reduced projected 2023 emissions by 23.2%. As a result, the net projected New Mexico Oil and Gas E&P NO X emissions for 2023 were projected to increase only 1.8% (27.8%-2.8%-23.2%) from 2011 emission levels despite the projected activity growth in the sector.

EPA used appropriate techniques and the most recently available data to estimate both base and projection year inventories for the Oil and Gas E&P sector in the 2017 and 2023 modeling. This supports the conclusion that it is appropriate to rely on EPA's assessment of the 2017 and 2023 modeling to conclude that New Mexico's impact on all identified downwind receptors is below the 1 percent threshold of 0.75 ppb in 2019-2020 and therefore that New Mexico will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states. A complete discussion of our evaluation is included in the Response to Comment Technical Support Document, which can be found in the docket for this action.

Comment #2: The commenters state that they have not reviewed other inventory contributions but that the 2017 and 2023 emission projections from 2011 for other source categories (non-Oil and Gas E&P emissions) are likely not correct. The commenters then state that EPA should update its inventory using 2017 actual emissions data and use 2017 actuals to project 2023 air quality, including a potential range of emissions scenarios for 2023.

Response #2: EPA disagrees with the commenters' claim that the 2017 and 2023 future year emission projections for other source categories are also incorrect. The commenters have not provided a reason to doubt the accuracy of the inventories and projections for these other sectors, nor have they provided information to support the claim. Therefore, EPA continues to believe that the methodologies used by EPA to calculate 2017 and 2023 future year projections are appropriate. For further explanation on how these inventories and projections are assessed, please see the more detailed response for Comment #1 in the Response to Comment Technical Support Document, which can be found in the docket for this action.

In response to the commenters' suggestion that EPA should update its 2017 inventory with actual emissions, and include a range of emissions projections for 2023, EPA again disagrees. The 2017 NEI emissions for non-point Oil and Gas E&P emission sources were not yet available at the time EPA conducted the 2023 modeling, but nonetheless the commenter has not indicated how or whether the use of the 2017 data would be likely to change EPA's assessment of New Mexico's impact on downwind receptors.

We do note, as explained in further detail below, it is also not reasonable to redo projections to 2023 and remodel impacts as part of the review of the New Mexico SIP. Redevelopment of emission inventories and performing photochemical grid modeling with source apportionment would take at least one to two years and significant resources. Such an effort is not a reasonable expectation without any indication that the use of 2017 data in its modeling is likely to lead to a different conclusion with respect to New Mexico's SIP. New Mexico utilized recent EPA modeling in developing its SIP submittals and we utilized even more recent analyses that were released in 2017 and 2018 to support our proposed approval action. As discussed above we used the most recent EIA AEO data at the time the emission inventories were generated. The commenter has not provided any information to support its conclusion that EPA would need to perform new modeling to support its approval of New Mexico's SIP, nor have the commenters provided any such updated modeling data. Therefore, EPA continues to believe that its analysis of the available data indicates that New Mexico will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states.

We are (1) determining that New Mexico and the City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County have met their obligation under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) because New Mexico will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state and (2) approving the October 10, 2018 New Mexico and October 4, 2018 City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County SIP revisions for the 2008 ozone NAAQS interstate transport requirements of CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

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, described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, the SIP 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 July 6, 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).)

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

This document announces that, on March 31, 2020, OMB approved the information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Report and Order, FCC 17-120, published at 83 FR 7619, February 22, 2018. The OMB Control Numbers are 3060-0289, 3060-0331, 3060-0419 and 3060-1045. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the effective date of the information collection requirements.

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on March 31, 2020, for the information collection requirements contained in the Commission's rules.

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 are 3060-0289, 3060-0331, 3060-0419 and 3060-1045.

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: 3060-0289.

OMB Approval Date: March 31, 2020.

OMB Expiration Date: March 31, 2023.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0289.

Title: Section 76.601, Performance Tests; Section 76.1704, Proof of Performance Test Data; Section 76.1717, Compliance with Technical Standards.

Form Number: N/A.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, and state, local, or tribal government.

Number of Respondents: 4,085 respondents, 6,433 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.5 to 70 hours.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement, Semi-annual and Triennial reporting requirements; Third party disclosure requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Sections 4(i) and 624(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 166,405 hours.

Total Annual Cost: None.

Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

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

Needs and Uses: The Commission modified this submission to reflect that the testing required under Section 76.601(b) applies only to cable systems that deliver analog signals, and the cable operator must only test analog channels (see FCC 17-120). We expect that this change will reduce the number of filers associated with this information collection.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0331.

OMB Approval Date: March 31, 2020.

OMB Expiration Date: March 31, 2023.

Title: Aeronautical Frequency Notification, FCC Form 321.

Form Number: FCC Form 321.

Respondents: Business and other for-profit entities; not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents: 1,886 respondents, 1,886 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.67 hours.

Frequency of Response: One time and on occasion reporting requirements.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Sections 154(i), 301, 303, 308, 309 and 621 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 1,264 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $132,020.

Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

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

Needs and Uses: Multichannel Video Programming Distributors (MVPDs) provide their programming over a closed system and, thus, may use all frequencies to do so. They must, however, prevent leakage of those signals from the system and guard against and minimize any harm to aeronautical communications should leak occur. Part of the regime for protecting aeronautical frequencies from interference and resolving interference is notification of the Commission of use of those frequencies and that proper frequency offsets and other precautions are taken. Form 321 is used for this purpose.

The Commission modified this submission to reflect that the Commission adopted a rule, 47 CFR 76.1804, which a new trigger for filing FCC Form 321 (see FCC 17-120, adopted on September 22, 2017). Under 47 CFR 76.1804, an MVPD shall notify the Commission before transmitting any digital signal with average power exceeding 10 −5 watts across a 30 kHz bandwidth in a 2.5 millisecond time period, or for other signal types, any carrier of other signal component with an average power level across a 25 kHz bandwidth in any 160 microsecond time period equal to or greater than 10 −4 watts at any point in the cable distribution system on any new frequency or frequencies in the aeronautical radio frequency bands (108-137 MHz, 225-400 MHz). The notification shall be made on FCC Form 321.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0419.

OMB Approval Date: March 31, 2020.

OMB Expiration Date: March 31, 2023.

Title: Network Non-duplication Protection and Syndication Exclusivity: Sections 76.94, Notification; 76.95, Exceptions; 76.105, Notifications; 76.106, Exceptions; 76.107, Exclusivity Contracts; and 76.1609, Non-Duplication and Syndicated Exclusivity.

Form Number: N/A.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 5,980 respondents; 249,880 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.5 to 2 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement; One-time 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 Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 233,420 hours.

Total Annual Cost: None.

Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

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

Needs and Uses: This information collection was revised to receive approval for a minor revision to 47 CFR 76.105(b), which requires broadcasters entering into contracts that contain syndicated exclusivity protection to notify affected cable systems within 60 calendar days of the signing of such a contract. The revision to 47 CFR 76.105(b) removes outdated language about contracts entered into before August 18, 1988 (see FCC 17-120).

OMB Control Number: 3060-1045.

OMB Approval Date: March 31, 2020.

OMB Expiration Date: March 31, 2023.

Title: Section 76.1610, Change of Operational Information; FCC Form 324, Operator, Mail Address, and Operational Status Changes.

Form Number: FCC Form 324.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents: 325 respondents; 325 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.5 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in 154(i), 303, 308, 309 and 621 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 163 hours.

Total Annual Cost: None.

Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

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

Needs and Uses: The information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 76.1610 require that operators shall inform the Commission on FCC Form 324 whenever there is a change of cable television system operator; change of legal name, change of the operator's mailing address or FCC Registration Number (FRN); or change in the operational status of a cable television system. Notification must be done within 30 days from the date the change occurs and must include the following information, as appropriate: (a) The legal name of the operator and whether the operator is an individual, private association, partnership, corporation, or government entity. See Section 76.5(cc). If the operator is a partnership, the legal name of the partner responsible for communications with the Commission shall be supplied; (b) The assumed name (if any) used for doing business in each community; (c) The physical address, including zip code, and email address, if applicable, to which all communications are to be directed; (d) The nature of the operational status change ( e.g., operation terminated, merged with another system, inactive, deleted, etc.); (e) The names and FCC identifiers ( e.g., CA 0001) of the system communities affected.

The Commission removed 47 CFR 76.1610(f) and (g) from its rules to remove duplication from that rule section (see FCC 17-120, adopted on September 22, 2017).

Regulations implemented under the authority of the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq. ) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. ) governing the harvest of BFT by persons and vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction are found at 50 CFR part 635. Section 635.27 subdivides the U.S. BFT quota recommended by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) among the various domestic fishing categories, per the allocations established in Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan (2006 Consolidated HMS FMP) (Amendment 7) (79 FR 71510, December 2, 2014), and in accordance with implementing regulations. NMFS is required under ATCA and the Magnuson-Stevens Act to provide U.S. fishing vessels with a reasonable opportunity to harvest the ICCAT-recommended quota.

As a method for limiting fishing mortality on juvenile BFT, ICCAT recommends a tolerance limit on the annual harvest of BFT measuring less than 115 centimeters (cm) (45.3 inches) (straight fork length) to no more than 10 percent by weight of a Contracting Party's total BFT quota. Any overharvest of such tolerance limit from one year must be subtracted from the tolerance limit applicable in the next year or the year after that. NMFS implements this provision by limiting the harvest of school BFT (measuring 27 to less than 47 inches curved fork length) as appropriate to not exceed the 10-percent limit (127.3 mt) annually.

In 2018, NMFS implemented a final rule that established the U.S. BFT quota and subquotas consistent with ICCAT Recommendation 17-06 (83 FR 53191, October 11, 2018). The currently codified baseline U.S. quota is 1,247.86 metric tons (mt) (not including the 25 mt ICCAT allocated to the United States to account for bycatch of BFT in pelagic longline fisheries in the Northeast Distant Gear Restricted Area). See § 635.27(a). The currently codified Angling category quota is 232.4 mt (127.3 mt for school BFT, 99.8 mt for large school/small medium BFT, and 5.3 mt for large medium/giant BFT).

The Angling category season opened January 1, 2020, and continues through December 31, 2020. The size classes of BFT are summarized in Table 1. Please note that large school and small medium BFT traditionally have been managed as one size class, as described below, i.e., a limit of one large school/small medium BFT (measuring 47 to less than 73 inches). Currently, the default Angling category daily retention limit of one school, large school, or small medium BFT applies (§ 635.23(b)(2)). This retention limit applies to HMS Angling and to HMS Charter/Headboat category permitted vessels (when fishing recreationally for BFT).

As defined at § 600.10, “charter boat” means a vessel less than 100 gross tons (90.8 mt) that meets the requirements of the U.S. Coast Guard to carry six or fewer passengers for hire ( i.e., uninspected) and “headboat” means a vessel that holds a valid Certificate of Inspection issued by the U.S. Coast Guard to carry passengers for hire ( i.e., greater than six).

Table 2 summarizes the recreational quota, subquotas, landings, and retention limit information for 2018 and 2019, by size class.

Under § 635.23(b)(3), NMFS may increase or decrease the Angling category retention limit for any size class of BFT after considering regulatory determination criteria provided under § 635.27(a)(8). Also under § 635.23(b)(3), recreational retention limits may be adjusted separately for specific vessel type, such as private vessels, headboats, or charter boats.

NMFS has considered all of the relevant determination criteria and their applicability to the change in the Angling category retention limit. The criteria and their application are discussed below.

NMFS considered the usefulness of information obtained from catches in the particular category for biological sampling and monitoring of the status of the stock (§ 635.27(a)(8)(i)). Biological samples collected from BFT landed by recreational fishermen continue to provide NMFS with valuable parts and data for ongoing scientific studies of BFT age and growth, migration, and reproductive status. Additional opportunity to land BFT would support the collection of a broad range of data for these studies and for stock monitoring purposes.

NMFS considered the catches of the Angling category quota to date and the likelihood of closure of that segment of the fishery if no adjustment is made (§ 635.27(a)(8)(ii)). NMFS anticipates that the full 2020 Angling category quota would not be harvested under the default retention limit. As shown in Table 2, Angling category landings in 2018 and 2019 were approximately 48 percent and 78 percent of the 232.4-mt annual Angling category quota, respectively, including landings of 44 percent and 56 percent of the available school BFT quota, respectively.

NMFS also considered the effects of the adjustment on the BFT stock and the effects of the adjustment on accomplishing the objectives of the FMP (§ 635.27(a)(8)(v) and (vi)). These retention limits would be consistent with the quotas established and analyzed in the 2018 BFT quota final rule, which implemented the ICCAT quota consistent with ATCA, and with objectives of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and amendments, and is not expected to negatively impact stock health or to affect the stock in ways not already analyzed in those documents. It is also important that NMFS limit landings to the subquotas both to adhere to the FMP quota allocations and to ensure that landings are as consistent as possible with the pattern of fishing mortality ( e.g., fish caught at each age) that was assumed in the latest stock assessment.

Another principal consideration in setting the retention limit is the objective of providing opportunities to harvest the full Angling category quota without exceeding it based on the goals of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and amendments, including to achieve optimum yield on a continuing basis and to optimize the ability of all permit categories to harvest their full BFT quota allocations (related to § 635.27(a)(8)(x)).

The 2019 school BFT landings represent 6 percent of the total U.S. quota for 2019, well under the ICCAT recommended 10-percent limit. Given that the Angling category landings fell short of the available quota and considering the regulatory criteria above, NMFS has determined that the Angling category retention limit applicable to participants on HMS Angling and HMS Charter/Headboat category permitted vessels should be adjusted upwards from the default levels.

NMFS has also concluded that implementation of separate limits for private, charter boat, and headboat vessels is appropriate, recognizing the different nature, socio-economic needs, and recent landings results of the two components of the recreational BFT fishery. For example, charter operators historically have indicated that a multi-fish retention limit is vital to their ability to attract customers. In addition, Large Pelagics Survey estimates indicate that charter/headboat BFT landings averaged 27 percent of recent recreational landings for 2018 through 2019, with the remaining 73 percent landed by private vessels. NMFS has further concluded that a higher limit for headboats (than charter boats) is appropriate, given the limited number of headboats participating in the bluefin tuna fishery.

Given these considerations, for private vessels with HMS Angling category permits, this action adjusts the limit upwards to two school BFT and one large school/small medium BFT per vessel per day/trip ( i.e., two BFT measuring 27 to less than 47 inches, and one BFT measuring 47 to less than 73 inches). For charter boat vessels with HMS Charter/Headboat permits, this action adjusts the limit upwards to three school BFT and one large school/small medium BFT per vessel per day/trip when fishing recreationally for BFT ( i.e., three BFT measuring 27 to less than 47 inches, and one BFT measuring 47 to less than 73 inches). For headboat vessels with HMS Charter/Headboat permits, this action adjusts the limit upwards to six school BFT and two large school/small medium BFT per vessel per day/trip when fishing recreationally for BFT ( i.e., three BFT measuring 27 to less than 47 inches, and one BFT measuring 47 to less than 73 inches). Regardless of the duration of a fishing trip, the daily retention limit applies upon landing. For example, whether a private vessel (fishing under the Angling category retention limit) takes a two-day trip or makes two trips in one day, the day/trip limit of two school BFT and one large school/small medium BFT applies and may not be exceeded upon landing.

NMFS anticipates that the BFT daily retention limits in this action will result in landings during 2020 that would not exceed the available subquotas. Lower retention limits could result in substantial underharvest of the codified Angling category subquota, and increasing the daily limits further may risk exceeding the available quota, contrary to the objectives of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and amendments. NMFS considered input on recreational limits from the HMS Advisory Panel at its May and September 2019 meetings. NMFS is not setting higher school BFT limits than the adjustments listed in Table 1 due to the potential risk of exceeding the ICCAT tolerance limit on school BFT and other considerations, such as potential effort shifts to BFT fishing as a result of current recreational retention limits for New England groundfish and striped bass.

NMFS will continue to monitor the BFT fisheries closely through the mandatory landings and catch reports. HMS Charter/Headboat and Angling category vessel owners are required to report the catch of all BFT retained or discarded dead, within 24 hours of the landing(s) or end of each trip, by accessing hmspermits.noaa.gov, using the HMS Catch Reporting app, or calling (888) 872-8862 (Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. until 4:30 p.m.). Depending on the level of fishing effort and catch rates of BFT, NMFS may determine that additional retention limit adjustments or closures are necessary to ensure available quota is not exceeded or to enhance scientific data collection from, and fishing opportunities in, all geographic areas. If needed, subsequent adjustments will be published in the Federal Register . In addition, fishermen may call the Atlantic Tunas Information Line at (978) 281-9260, or access hmspermits.noaa.gov, for updates on quota monitoring and inseason adjustments.

HMS Angling and HMS Charter/Headboat category permit holders may catch and release (or tag and release) BFT of all sizes, subject to the requirements of the catch-and-release and tag-and-release programs at § 635.26. Anglers are also reminded that all BFT that are released must be handled in a manner that will maximize survival, and without removing the fish from the water, consistent with requirements at § 635.21(a)(1). For additional information on safe handling, see the “Careful Catch and Release” brochure available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/outreach-and-education/careful-catch-and-release-brochure .

The Assistant Administrator for NMFS (AA) finds that it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to provide prior notice of, and an opportunity for public comment on, this action for the following reasons:

The regulations implementing the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and amendments provide for inseason retention limit adjustments to respond to the unpredictable nature of BFT availability on the fishing grounds, the migratory nature of this species, and the regional variations in the BFT fishery. Affording prior notice and opportunity for public comment to implement the daily retention limit for the remainder of 2020 at this time is impracticable. Based on available BFT quotas, fishery performance in recent years, and the availability of BFT on the fishing grounds, immediate adjustment to the Angling category BFT daily retention limit from the default levels is warranted to allow fishermen to take advantage of the availability of fish and of quota. NMFS could not have proposed these actions earlier, as it needed to consider and respond to updated data and information from the 2019 Angling category. If NMFS was to offer a public comment period now, after having appropriately considered that data, it would preclude fishermen from harvesting BFT that are legally available consistent with all of the regulatory criteria, and/or could result in selection of a retention limit inappropriately high or low for the amount of quota available for the period.

Fisheries under the Angling category daily retention limit are currently underway and thus prior notice would be contrary to the public interest. Delays in increasing daily recreational BFT retention limit would adversely affect those HMS Angling and Charter/Headboat category vessels that would otherwise have an opportunity to harvest more than the default retention limit of one school, large school, or small medium BFT per day/trip and may exacerbate the problem of low catch rates and quota rollovers. Analysis of available data shows that adjustment to the BFT daily retention limit from the default level would result in minimal risks of exceeding the ICCAT-allocated quota. NMFS provides notification of retention limit adjustments by publishing the notice in the Federal Register , emailing individuals who have subscribed to the Atlantic HMS News electronic newsletter, and updating the information posted on the Atlantic Tunas Information Line and on hmspermits.noaa.gov . Therefore, the AA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment. For these reasons, there also is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness.

This action is being taken under § 635.23(b)(3), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.