On February 13, 2020, OPM issued a proposed rule (85 FR 8205) to redefine the Fort Chaffee portion of Franklin County, AR, from the Little Rock, AR, wage area to the Tulsa, OK, wage area.

FPRAC, the national labor-management committee responsible for advising OPM on matters concerning the pay of FWS employees, reviewed and recommended these changes by consensus.

The 30-day comment period ended on March 16, 2020. OPM received one comment supporting the move of the Fort Chaffee portion of Franklin County to the Tulsa wage area and asking OPM to define Monroe County, PA, from the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA, wage area to the New York, NY, wage area. The wage area definition of Monroe County is beyond the scope of this rule.

This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under E.O. 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

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

OPM certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they will affect only Federal agencies and employees.

We have examined this rule in accordance with Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that this rule will not have any negative impact on the rights, roles and responsibilities of State, local, or tribal governments.

This regulation meets the applicable standard set forth in Executive Order 12988.

This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

This action pertains to agency management, personnel, and organization and does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of nonagency parties and, accordingly, is not a “rule” as that term is used by the Congressional Review Act (Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA)). Therefore, the reporting requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does not apply.

This rule does not impose any new reporting or record-keeping requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Accordingly, OPM is amending 5 CFR part 532 as follows:

The Director of OGE (Director) is authorized by 18 U.S.C. 207(h) to designate distinct and separate departmental or agency components in the executive branch for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207(c), the one-year post-employment conflict of interest restriction for senior employees. Under 18 U.S.C. 207(h)(2), component designations do not apply to persons employed at a rate of pay specified in or fixed according to subchapter II of 5 U.S.C. chapter 53 (the Executive Schedule). Component designations are listed in appendix B to 5 CFR part 2641.

The representational bar of 18 U.S.C. 207(c) usually extends to the whole of any department or agency in which a former senior employee served in any capacity during the year prior to termination from a senior employee position. However, 18 U.S.C. 207(h) provides that whenever the Director determines that an agency or bureau within a department or agency in the executive branch exercises functions which are distinct and separate from the remaining functions of the department or agency and there exists no potential for use of undue influence or unfair advantage based on past Government service, the Director shall by rule designate such agency or bureau as a separate component of that department or agency.

Pursuant to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 2641.302(e), three agencies forwarded written requests to OGE to amend their listings in appendix B to part 2641, and on February 7, 2020, OGE published a proposed rule in the Federal Register that proposed to revise the component designations of those agencies (85 FR 7252). The proposed rule provided a 30-day comment period, which ended on March 9, 2020. OGE did not receive any comments. The rationale for the proposed rule, which OGE is now adopting as final, is explained in the proposed rule preamble at 85 FR 7252 (Feb. 7, 2020).

For the reasons stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, OGE is: (1) Granting the request of the Department of Labor and amending the agency's listing to designate the Veterans' Employment and Training Service as a distinct and separate component of the Department of Labor for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207(c); (2) granting the request of the Department of Commerce to designate the Bureau of Economic Analysis as a distinct and separate component of the Department of Commerce for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207(c); and (3) granting the request of the Department of the Treasury to update the component listed as “Financial Crimes Enforcement Center (FinCEN)” to reflect the component's proper name, “Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)”, thereby correcting an inadvertent error in the appendix B listing of this long-designated component.

As indicated in 5 CFR 2641.302(f), a designation “shall be effective on the date the rule creating the designation is published in the Federal Register and shall be effective as to individuals who terminated senior service either before, on or after that date.” Initial designations in appendix B to part 2641 were effective as of January 1, 1991. The effective date of subsequent designations is indicated by means of parenthetical entries in appendix B. The new component designations made in this rule for the Veterans' Employment and Training Service and the Bureau of Economic Analysis are effective on the date the final rule is published in the Federal Register ; the component designation of FinCEN remains in effect as of the original designation date, January 30, 2003.

As Director of the Office of Government Ethics, I certify under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it affects only Federal departments and agencies and current and former Federal employees.

The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) does not apply to this final rule because it does not contain information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget.

For purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. chapter 25, subchapter II), this final rule will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments and will not result in increased expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (as adjusted for inflation) in any one year.

The final rule is not a major rule as defined in 5 U.S.C. chapter 8, Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking.

Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select the regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. In promulgating this final rule, the Office of Government Ethics has adhered to the regulatory philosophy and the applicable principles of regulation set forth in Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. This rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 because it is not a “significant” regulatory action for the purposes of that order.

As Director of the Office of Government Ethics, I have reviewed this final rule in light of section 3 of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, and certify that it meets the applicable standards provided therein.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Office of Government Ethics amends 5 CFR part 2641, as follows:

FCIC serves America's agricultural producers through effective, market-based risk management tools to strengthen the economic stability of agricultural producers and rural communities. The Risk Management Agency (RMA) manages FCIC. FCIC is committed to increasing the availability and effectiveness of Federal crop insurance as a risk management tool. Approved Insurance Providers (AIP) sell and service Federal crop insurance policies in every state and in Puerto Rico through a public-private partnership. FCIC reinsures the AIPs who share the risks associated with catastrophic losses due to major weather events. FCIC's vision is to secure the future of agriculture by providing world class risk management tools to rural America.

Federal crop insurance policies typically consist of the Basic Provisions, the Crop Provisions, the Special Provisions, the Commodity Exchange Price Provisions, if applicable, other applicable endorsements or options, the actuarial documents for the insured agricultural commodity, the Catastrophic Risk Protection Endorsement, if applicable, and the applicable regulations published in 7 CFR chapter IV.

FCIC amends the Common Crop Insurance Regulations by revising 7 CFR 457.140, Dry Pea Crop Insurance Provisions, to be effective for the 2021 and succeeding crop years. The intended effect of this action is to update existing policy provisions and definitions to better reflect current agricultural practices.

The changes to 7 CFR 457.140, Dry Pea Crop Insurance Provisions are as follows:

FCIC is revising the definition of “combining” to add the word “dry” before the word “peas” in both places because “dry peas” is defined in the policy.

FCIC is revising the name and definition of “contract seed peas” to “contract seed types” to allow FCIC to include specific other categories of dry peas to be included as a contract seed type in the Special Provisions. Currently, the definition of “contract seed peas” only includes the category of Peas ( Pisum sativum L.) in the definition. This change will allow FCIC to add other categories (for example, Lentils ( Lens culinaris Medik.), Chickpeas ( Cicer arietinum L.), and Fava or Faba beans, ( Vicia faba L. )) in the future. FCIC is revising any reference to “contract seed peas” to “contract seed types” throughout the Dry Pea Crop Provisions. FCIC is making conforming changes to revise any reference to “contract seed peas” to “contract seed types” throughout the regulation.

FCIC is revising the definition of “dry peas” to include Fava or Faba beans and other types of dry peas insured by written agreement. The current definition of “dry peas” does not recognize Fava or Faba beans as insurable under the Dry Pea Crop Provisions. Currently, Fava or Faba beans are insured by written agreement under the Dry Bean Crop Provisions. However, Fava or Faba beans are a cool season crop, which more closely matches dry peas, whereas dry beans are a warm season crop. In addition, the cultural and agronomic practices to grow Fava or Faba beans are more similar to dry peas than dry beans. Therefore, adding Fava or Faba beans ( Vicia faba L. ) to the definition of “dry peas” will allow this type of bean to be insured under the Dry Pea Crop Provisions.

FCIC is adding a definition of “latest final planting date” to specify the final planting date for those counties that have only spring-planted acreage, only fall-planted acreage, or both spring-planted and fall-planted acreage. This change is consistent with other crop provisions that allow spring-planted and fall-planted acreage.

FCIC is revising the definition of “local market price” to clarify moisture content not associated with grading under the U.S. Standards will not be considered in establishing the local market price. This revision is necessary because FCIC is adding a moisture adjustment to gross production in section 13 of the Dry Pea Crop Provisions as described below. FCIC is also revising the definition to include “Beans (Chickpeas and Fava or Faba beans)” in the list of U.S. Standards. The definition currently includes factors not associated with grading under the U.S. Standards for Whole Dry Peas, Split Peas, and Lentils. However, the standards for chickpeas and Fava or Faba beans can be found in U.S. Standards for Beans. Therefore, “Beans (Chickpeas and Fava or Faba beans)” should be added to the list as chickpeas and Fava or Faba beans are defined as dry peas in these Crop Provisions.

FCIC is revising the definition of “practical to replant” for clarity and removing paragraph (c) from the definition. That paragraph of the definition is not necessary because the Common Crop Insurance Policy, Basic Provisions (Basic Provisions), already includes the information that was in paragraph (c).

FCIC is adding a definition of “prevented planting” to specify it is the same definition found in the Basic Provisions except references to “final planting date” contained in the definition in the Basic Provisions are replaced with “latest final planting date.” This change is consistent with other crop provisions that allow spring-planted and fall-planted acreage.

FCIC is revising the definition of “type” to allow other types to be insured by written agreement. This change is consistent with the changes being made to the definition of “dry peas.” FCIC is making conforming changes to remove references to types being found in the Special Provisions throughout the regulation because the definition of “type” contains a reference to the Special Provisions.

FCIC is replacing the phrase “Special Provisions” with “actuarial documents in sections 3(b)(1) and (2) because this section is referring to where price elections can be found. Price elections can be found in the actuarial documents.

FCIC is revising section 4 to add an additional contract change date of June 30 preceding the cancellation date for counties with an October 31 cancellation date to allow for expansion into California and specific counties in Arizona. For the same reason, FCIC is revising section 5 to add a cancellation and termination date of October 31.

FCIC is redesignating section 7(a)(3)(iv) as section 7(a)(4) and revising it to disallow written agreements on acreage that is planted with the intent to plow down, graze, harvest as hay, or otherwise not harvest as a mature dry pea crop. In those situations, the producer is not trying to harvest the dry pea crop and a written agreement should not be allowed on the acreage.

FCIC is revising the introductory text in section 8(c) to state the provisions of 8(c) are applicable when the Special Provisions designate both fall and spring planted types and the Winter Coverage Option is not in force for the acreage. Prior to this rule, the introductory text stated it is applicable if the Special Provisions designate both fall and spring final planting dates but section 8(c)(3) stated if the Winter Coverage Option is elected, insurance is in accordance with the option. The revisions combine the provisions in the introductory text to section 8(c) and section 8(c)(3). FCIC is removing section 8(c)(3) as the section is not necessary with the revision to the introductory text to section 8(c).

FCIC is revising section 8(c)(1) to remove the phrase “fall-planted dry peas” and replacing it with the phrase “fall-planted dry pea acreage” for clarity. FCIC is also revising the section to make it clear these provisions are applicable for the replanted type to obtain insurance after it has been replanted.

FCIC is adding a new section 8(d) to clarify when the Special Provisions designate both fall and spring-planted types, and the Winter Coverage Option is in force for the acreage, insurance will be in accordance with the Winter Coverage Option. This text was previously in section 8(c)(3), but conflicted with the introductory text to section 8(c), which was discussed above.

FCIC is redesignating section 8(d) as section 8(e) and revising it to remove the phrase “spring final planting date” and replacing it with “spring-planted type” for clarity. FCIC is making the same clarification throughout the policy by removing references to fall or spring final planting dates and changing it to reference fall or spring-planted types, where appropriate. Some counties list both spring and fall types in the Special Provisions but the final planting date for fall types is not listed. A fall final planting date is only listed if the Winter Coverage Option is elected. Therefore, there was confusion as to whether certain provisions were applicable when they referred to a fall final planting date if the Winter Coverage Option was not elected because no fall final planting date is listed. FCIC is also removing the phrase “agree in writing” as this could be misinterpreted to mean a written agreement, which is not the intent of the language, and could result in providing insurance via written agreement when it was not intended, nor appropriate. FCIC is also revising this language to clarify the AIP must inspect and determine the acreage has an adequate stand. These clarifications will reduce the likelihood of fraud, waste and abuse.

FCIC is rearranging and clarifying section 9(a). Prior to this rule, section 9(a) was not clear if a spring inspection is required nor did it address whether the insured must insure fall-planted acreage if it meets the criteria of section 8, Insurable Acreage. In a county with fall and spring types, fall types must be reported by the spring sales closing date. If there is an adequate stand of the fall-planted type in the spring, insurance will attach on the date the AIP determines there is an adequate stand or on the spring final planting date if the AIP does not make that determination prior to the spring final planting date. Fall-planted acreage must be reported and insured if it meets the requirements of section 8.

In sections 11(a)(4) and (5), FCIC is removing the reference to “final planting date” and replacing it with the phrase “type designated in the Special Provisions” for clarity as explained above for section 8(d). FCIC is also removing “are designated” at the end of paragraph as it is redundant.

In section 13, FCIC is revising the steps for settlement of a claim and the example to consistently use defined terms and clarify that some instructions only apply if there is more than one dry pea type insured.

FCIC is revising section 13(d)(1)(iii) to clarify mature unharvested production of dry peas may be adjusted for excess moisture. This revision is necessary because FCIC is adding a moisture adjustment to gross production in section 13(e) of the Dry Pea Crop Provisions as described below.

FCIC is revising section 13(e), at the request of producers, to add a moisture adjustment to gross production; similar to other crops (for example, Dry Beans; Coarse Grains, Small Grains). Dry peas are sometimes harvested with moisture content above 14 percent. Most processors will apply a discount to either production or price due to excess moisture. The current Dry Pea policy does not allow for such reduction causing insureds to believe they are not being treated fairly. Applying moisture adjustment results in a reduction to production to count  1 of 0.12 percent for each 0.1 percentage points of moisture in excess of 14 percent. The adjustment for moisture is made prior to applying any qualifying quality adjustment(s). Applying moisture adjustment to gross production is proactive and consistent with other similar crop provisions. This adjustment will also lead to more accurate loss determinations. Adjustments for excess moisture should have no significant impacts to producers' rates or indemnities.

In section 14, FCIC is adding a new paragraph (a) to clarify that in counties for which the Special Provisions designate both fall-planted and spring- planted types, the policyholder's prevented planting production guarantee will be based on their approved yield for spring-planted acreage of the insured crop.

FCIC is revising section 15(d) to remove the reference to “final planting date” and replacing it with the phrase “planted type.” As explained above, this change will eliminate any confusion of whether a fall final planting date exists in the actuarial documents if the Winter Coverage Option is not selected.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. 553) provides that the notice and comment and 30-day delay in the effective date provisions do not apply when the rule involves specified actions, including matters relating to contracts. This rule governs contracts for crop insurance policies and therefore falls within that exemption.

For major rules, the Congressional Review Act requires a delay the effective date of 60 days after publication to allow for Congressional review. This rule is not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Therefore, this final rule is effective June 30, 2020. Although not required by APA or any other law, FCIC has chosen to request comments on this rule.

Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasized the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The requirements in Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 for the analysis of costs and benefits apply to rules that are determined to be significant. Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” established a federal policy to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens on the American people.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated this rule as not significant under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and therefore, OMB has not reviewed this rule and analysis of the costs and benefits is not required under either Executive Order 12866 or 1356.

Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” requires that in order to manage the costs required to comply with Federal regulations that for every new significant or economically significant regulation issued, the new costs must be offset by savings from deregulatory actions. As this rule is designated as not significant, it is not subject to Executive Order 13771. In a general response to the requirements of Executive Order 13777, USDA created a Regulatory Reform Task Force, and USDA agencies were directed to remove barriers, reduce burdens, and provide better customer service both as part of the regulatory reform of existing regulations and as an ongoing approach. FCIC reviewed this regulation and made changes to improve any provision that was determined to be outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective.

Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. In addition to your substantive comments on this rule, we invite your comments on how to make the rule easier to understand. For example:

• Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? Are the scope and intent of the rule clear?

• Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?

• Is the material logically organized?

• Would changing the grouping or order of sections or adding headings make the rule easier to understand?

• Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?

• Would more, but shorter, sections be better? Are there specific sections that are too long or confusing?

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

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by SBREFA, generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory analysis of any rule whenever an agency is required by APA or any other law to publish a proposed rule, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act because as noted above, this rule is exempt from APA and no other law requires that a proposed rule be published for this rulemaking initiative.

In general, the environmental impacts of rules are to be considered in a manner consistent with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) and the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508). FCIC conducts programs and activities that have been determined to have no individual or cumulative effect on the human environment. As specified in 7 CFR 1b.4, FCIC is categorically excluded from the preparation of an Environmental Analysis or Environmental Impact Statement unless the FCIC Manager (agency head) determines that an action may have a significant environmental effect. The FCIC Manager has determined this rule will not have a significant environmental effect. Therefore, FCIC will not prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement for this action and this rule serves as documentation of the programmatic environmental compliance decision.

Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” requires consultation with State and local officials that would be directly affected by proposed Federal financial assistance. The objectives of the Executive Order are to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism, by relying on State and local processes for State and local government coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance and direct Federal development. For reasons specified in the final rule related notice regarding 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V (48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983), the programs and activities in this rule are excluded from the scope of Executive Order 12372.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform.” This rule will not preempt State or local laws, regulations, or policies unless they represent an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. Before any judicial actions may be brought regarding the provisions of this rule, the administrative appeal provisions of 7 CFR part 11 are to be exhausted.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13132, “Federalism.” The policies contained in this rule do not have any substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, except as required by law. Nor does this rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments. Therefore, consultation with the States is not required.

This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have Tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

RMA has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian Tribes and determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have Tribal implications that require Tribal consultation under E.O. 13175. The regulation changes do not have Tribal implications that preempt Tribal law and are not expected have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes. If a Tribe requests consultation, RMA will work with the USDA Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes and additions identified in this rule are not expressly mandated by law.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, Pub. L. 104-4) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions of State, local, and Tribal governments or the private sector. Agencies generally must prepare a written statement, including cost benefits analysis, for proposed and final rules with Federal mandates that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more in any 1 year for State, local or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector. UMRA generally requires agencies to consider alternatives and adopt the more cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. This rule contains no Federal mandates, as defined in Title II of UMRA, for State, local, and Tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.

The title and number of the Federal Domestic Assistance Program listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance to which this rule applies is No. 10.450—Crop Insurance.

In accordance with the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35, subchapter I), the rule does not change the information collection approved by OMB under control number 0563-0053.

FCIC is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

For the reasons discussed above, FCIC amends 7 CFR part 457, effective for the 2021 and succeeding crop years, as follows:

The FDIC, under its general rulemaking authority in Section 9 of the FDI Act, and its specific authority under Section 7 of the FDI Act to establish a risk-based assessment system and set assessments, is finalizing modifications to mitigate the deposit insurance assessment effects of participation in the PPP, PPPLF, and MMLF. For the reasons explained below, an IDI that participates in the PPP, PPPLF, or MMLF programs could be subject to increased deposit insurance assessments absent a change to the assessment regulations.

Recent events have significantly and adversely impacted the global economy and financial markets. The spread of the Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) slowed economic activity in many countries, including the United States. Sudden disruptions in financial markets placed increasing liquidity pressure on money market mutual funds (MMFs) and raised the cost of credit for most borrowers. MMFs faced redemption requests from clients with immediate cash needs and may need to sell a significant number of assets to meet these redemption requests, which could further increase market pressures.

In order to prevent the disruption in the money markets from destabilizing the financial system, on March 18, 2020, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board of Governors), with approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, authorized the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (FRBB) to establish the MMLF, pursuant to section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act. 1 Under the MMLF, the FRBB is extending non-recourse loans to eligible borrowers to purchase assets from MMFs. Assets purchased from MMFs are posted as collateral to the FRBB. Eligible borrowers under the MMLF include IDIs. Eligible collateral under the MMLF includes U.S. Treasuries and fully guaranteed agency securities, securities issued by government-sponsored enterprises, and certain types of commercial paper. The MMLF is scheduled to terminate on September 30, 2020, unless extended by the Board of Governors.

Small businesses also are facing severe liquidity constraints and a collapse in revenue streams, as millions of Americans were ordered to stay home, severely reducing their ability to engage in normal commerce. Many small businesses were forced to close temporarily or furlough employees. Continued access to financing will be crucial for small businesses to weather economic disruptions caused by COVID-19 and, ultimately, to help restore economic activity.

As part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) and in recognition of the exigent circumstances faced by small businesses, Congress created the PPP. 2 PPP loans are fully guaranteed as to principal and accrued interest by the Small Business Administration (SBA), the amount of each being determined at the time the guarantee is exercised. As a general matter, SBA guarantees are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. PPP loans also afford borrowers forgiveness up to the principal amount of the PPP loan, if the proceeds of the PPP loan are used for certain expenses. The SBA reimburses PPP lenders for any amount of a PPP loan that is forgiven. PPP lenders are not held liable for any representations made by PPP borrowers in connection with a borrower's request for PPP loan forgiveness. 3 On June 5, 2020, the Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act of 2020 (PPP Flexibility Act) was signed into law, amending key provisions of the CARES Act, including provisions related to loan maturity, deferral of loan payments, and loan forgiveness. 4 Among other changes, the amendments increase from two to five years the maturity of PPP loans that are approved by the SBA on or after June 5, 2020, and provide greater flexibility for borrowers to qualify for loan forgiveness.

In order to provide liquidity to small business lenders and the broader credit markets, and to help stabilize the financial system, on April 8, 2020, the Board of Governors, with approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, authorized each of the Federal Reserve Banks to extend credit under the PPPLF, pursuant to section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act. 5 Under the PPPLF, Federal Reserve Banks are extending non-recourse loans to institutions that are eligible to make PPP loans, including insured depository institutions (IDIs). Under the PPPLF, only PPP loans that are guaranteed by the SBA with respect to both principal and interest and that are originated by an eligible institution may be pledged as collateral to the Federal Reserve Banks (loans pledged to the PPPLF). The maturity date of the extension of credit under the PPPLF  6 equals the maturity date of the PPP loans pledged to secure the extension of credit. 7 No new extensions of credit will be made under the PPPLF after September 30, 2020, unless extended by the Board of Governors and the Department of the Treasury.

To facilitate use of the MMLF and PPPLF, the FDIC, Board of Governors, and Comptroller of the Currency (together, the agencies) adopted interim final rules on March 23, 2020, and April 13, 2020, respectively, to allow banking organizations to neutralize the regulatory capital effects of purchasing assets under the MMLF program and loans pledged to the PPPLF. 8 Consistent with Section 1102 of the CARES Act, the April 2020 interim final rule also required banking organizations to apply a zero percent risk weight to PPP loans originated by the banking organization under the PPP for purposes of the banking organization's risk-based capital requirements.

Pursuant to Section 7 of the FDI Act, the FDIC has established a risk-based assessment system through which it charges all IDIs an assessment amount for deposit insurance. 9

Under the FDIC's regulations, an IDI's assessment is equal to its assessment base multiplied by its risk-based assessment rate. 10 An IDI's assessment base and assessment rate are determined each quarter based on supervisory ratings and information collected on the Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (Call Report) or the Report of Assets and Liabilities of U.S. Branches and Agencies of Foreign Banks (FFIEC 002), as appropriate. Generally, an IDI's assessment base equals its average consolidated total assets minus its average tangible equity. 11 An IDI's assessment rate is calculated using different methods based on whether the IDI is a small, large, or highly complex institution. 12 For assessment purposes, a small bank is generally defined as an institution with less than $10 billion in total assets, a large bank is generally defined as an institution with $10 billion or more in total assets, and a highly complex bank is generally defined as an institution that has $50 billion or more in total assets and is controlled by a parent holding company that has $500 billion or more in total assets, or is a processing bank or trust company. 13

Assessment rates for established small banks are calculated based on eight risk measures that are statistically significant in predicting the probability of an institution's failure over a three-year horizon. 14 Large banks are assessed using a scorecard approach that combines CAMELS ratings and certain forward-looking financial measures to assess the risk that a large bank poses to the deposit insurance fund (DIF). 15 All institutions are subject to adjustments to their assessment rates for certain liabilities that can increase or reduce loss to the DIF in the event the bank fails. 16 In addition, the FDIC may adjust a large bank's total score, which is used in the calculation of its assessment rate, based upon significant risk factors not adequately captured in the appropriate scorecard. 17

Absent a change to the assessment rules, an IDI that participates in the PPP, PPPLF, or MMLF programs could be subject to increased deposit insurance assessments. For example, an institution that holds PPP loans, including loans pledged to the PPPLF, would increase its total loan portfolio, all else equal, which may increase its assessment rate. An IDI that receives funding under the PPPLF would increase the total assets on its balance sheet (equal to the amount of PPP loans pledged to the Federal Reserve Banks), and increase its total liabilities by the same amount, which would increase the IDI's assessment base and also may increase its assessment rate. An IDI that obtains additional funding, such as additional deposits or secured borrowings, to make PPP loans would increase its total liabilities and total assets by that amount of funding, which would increase its assessment base and also may increase its assessment rate. An IDI that relies on existing funding, including deposits already at the institution, to make PPP loans would not increase its total liabilities or total assets, which would not increase its assessment base.

Similarly, an IDI that participates in the MMLF would increase its total assets by the amount of assets purchased from MMFs under the MMLF and increase its liabilities by the same amount, which in turn would increase its assessment base and may also increase its assessment rate.

On May 20, 2020, the FDIC published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (the proposed rule, or proposal)  18 that would mitigate the deposit insurance assessment effects of an IDI's participation in the PPP, PPPLF, and MMLF programs. 19 To remove the effect of these programs on the risk measures used to determine the deposit insurance assessment rate for each IDI, the FDIC proposed to exclude PPP loans, which include loans pledged to the PPPLF, from an institution's loan portfolio; exclude loans pledged to the PPPLF from an institution's total assets; and, for institutions subject to the large or highly complex bank scorecard, exclude amounts borrowed from the Federal Reserve Banks under the PPPLF from an institution's liabilities. In addition, because participation in the PPPLF and MMLF programs will have the effect of expanding an IDI's balance sheet (and, by extension, its assessment base), the FDIC proposed to exclude loans pledged to the PPPLF and assets purchased under the MMLF in the calculation of certain adjustments to an IDI's assessment rate, and to provide an offset to an IDI's total assessment amount for the increase to its assessment base attributable to participation in the PPPLF and MMLF. Finally, in classifying IDIs as small, large, or highly complex for assessment purposes, the FDIC proposed to exclude from an IDI's total assets the amount of loans pledged to the PPPLF and assets purchased under the MMLF.

In response to the proposal, the FDIC received 41 comment letters from depository institutions, depository institution holding companies, trade associations, and other interested parties. 20 As further detailed below, commenters generally supported the FDIC's efforts to mitigate the deposit insurance effects of an IDI's participation in the PPP, PPPLF, and MMLF programs, but expressed concerns with certain aspects of the proposal. The FDIC considered all comments received and is making some changes in the final rule, while clarifying other aspects of the rule that remain unchanged from the proposed rule.

Under the final rule, the FDIC will remove the effect of participation in the PPP and borrowings under the PPPLF on various risk measures used to calculate an IDI's assessment rate, remove the effect of participation in the PPP and MMLF program on certain adjustments to an insured depository institution's assessment rate; provide an offset to an insured depository institution's assessment for the increase to its assessment base attributable to participation in the PPP and MMLF; and remove the effect of participation in the PPP and MMLF when classifying insured depository institutions as small, large, or highly complex for assessment purposes.

In the final rule, the FDIC tried to balance its policy objective of mitigating, to the fullest extent possible, the deposit insurance assessment effect of participation in the PPP, PPPLF, and MMLF, while minimizing the extent to which the final rule would result in an IDI paying less than it would have paid if it did not participate in the PPP, PPPLF, or MMLF. In response to comments and based on updated assumptions, as described further below, the final rule includes certain additional mitigation steps beyond those in the proposed rule that will more fully mitigate the assessment effect of participation in the aforementioned programs for more institutions, but may in certain cases result in over-mitigation for some institutions. At the same time, the FDIC declined to make certain adjustments requested by commenters, in part because such additional adjustments, when combined with the other provisions of the final rule, would likely have resulted, in the FDIC's estimation, in more over-mitigation than would be acceptable.

Most of the comments the FDIC received in response to the proposed rule stated that the proposed modifications would not completely offset the impact of PPP lending on assessments. Many of these commenters requested that the FDIC exclude all PPP loans, whether funded under the PPPLF or through other sources of liquidity, including deposits or Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) advances, from the calculation of an IDI's assessment rate, assessment base, or both, so that the bank's assessment would be mitigated accordingly, rather than excluding only loans pledged to the PPPLF.

A bank that funded its PPP loans with existing balance sheet liquidity would not have increased its total assets or total liabilities, and including these loans in the offset to its assessment would not be necessary because its assessment base would not have increased. Similarly, removing PPP loans from total assets in calculating an IDI's assessment rate would not be necessary if such loans did not increase the bank's total assets. For these reasons, the proposal would have removed only PPP loans pledged to the PPPLF from an IDI's total assets in calculating its deposit insurance assessment rate and certain other measures, and in calculating the offset due to the increase in its assessment base due to participation in the PPPLF. The FDIC understands that some banks have funded PPP loans through additional liabilities other than borrowings under the PPPLF, which would result in an increase to a bank's total assets and total liabilities. For banks that funded PPP loans by obtaining additional liabilities other than borrowings under the PPPLF, the proposal would not have fully mitigated the deposit insurance assessment effects of participation in the PPP.

After considering comments received, and in recognition of the important role IDIs play in providing liquidity to small businesses and helping to stabilize the broader economy in the midst of the economic disruption caused by COVID-19, as well as in recognition that some banks have funded PPP loans through additional liabilities other than borrowings under the PPPLF, under the final rule the FDIC will exclude the quarter-end outstanding balance of all PPP loans from an IDI's total assets in calculating an IDI's assessment rate and the offset to an IDI's assessment amount due to the inclusion of PPP loans in its assessment base. The FDIC expects that this exclusion will result in a more complete mitigation of the assessment effects of participation in PPP lending.

As described below, the FDIC will exclude the quarter-end outstanding balance of all PPP loans from an IDI's total assets in the applicable risk measures used to determine an IDI's assessment rate. In addition, because participation in the MMLF program will have the effect of expanding an IDI's balance sheet and because PPP lending funded by additional liabilities could have the effect of expanding an IDI's balance sheet (and, by extension, its assessment base), the FDIC will provide an offset to an IDI's total assessment amount for the increase to its assessment base attributable to PPP lending and participation in the MMLF. Under the final rule, the FDIC will calculate the offset to an IDI's total assessment amount based on its quarter-end outstanding balance of PPP loans and the quarterly average amount of assets purchased under the MMLF. The FDIC also will exclude the outstanding balance of PPP loans and assets purchased under the MMLF in the calculation of certain adjustments to an IDI's assessment rate.

Moreover, in classifying IDIs as small, large, or highly complex for assessment purposes, the FDIC also will exclude from an IDI's total assets the outstanding balance of PPP loans and assets purchased under the MMLF.

Because it is not possible for the FDIC to quantify how much of an IDI's total assets may have increased due to PPP loans relative to other balance sheet changes, including increased cash or other loans made either in response to the economic disruption caused by COVID-19 or that would have otherwise been made in the normal course of business, the final rule excludes all PPP loans from an IDI's total assets in calculating its deposit insurance assessment, rather than providing incomplete assessment mitigation for banks that funded PPP loans through additional liabilities other than borrowings under the PPPLF. To the extent that an institution did not increase its total assets as a result of PPP participation, the final rule could provide an assessment reduction that exceeds the actual increase in assessments that an institution would have experienced due to participation in the PPP.

Some commenters requested that the FDIC specifically exclude the quarter-end balance of outstanding PPP loans when calculating an IDI's assessment, as opposed to the quarterly average of such loans. Under the NPR, the FDIC proposed to exclude the quarter-end balance of outstanding loans pledged to the PPPLF from an IDI's total assets in those risk measures used to determine the deposit insurance assessment rate that are based on quarter-end outstanding amounts. For measures reported on an average basis, the FDIC proposed to exclude the quarterly average of loans pledged to the PPPLF. For example, an IDI's assessment base is determined by subtracting its average tangible equity from average consolidated total assets. In calculating the offset to an IDI's total assessment amount for the increase due to participation in the PPPLF and MMLF, the FDIC proposed to exclude quarterly average loans pledged to the PPPLF and quarterly average assets purchased under the MMLF. Commenters asserted that the assessment relief provided under the proposal would be limited because an IDI's average PPPLF participation over a quarter can be considerably less than its quarter-end PPP loan balance.

After considering comments received, and to minimize additional reporting burden, under the final rule the FDIC will exclude the quarter-end outstanding balance of PPP loans in mitigating the effect of PPP participation on an IDI's deposit insurance assessment, both for risk measures that are calculated using amounts reported as of quarter-end and for calculations that use amounts reported on an average basis.

Changes to reporting requirements applicable to the Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (Call Report), the Report of Assets and Liabilities of U.S. Branches and Agencies of Foreign Banks, and their respective instructions, have been implemented in order to make the adjustments to the assessment system under the final rule. These changes were effectuated in coordination with the other member entities of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council. 21

Some commenters also suggested that the leverage ratio, as applied in the calculation of an IDI's assessment rate, should be reduced by the quarter-end outstanding balances of all PPP loans. In accordance with the agencies' April 13, 2020, regulatory capital interim final rule, banking organizations are required to neutralize the regulatory capital effects of assets pledged to the PPPLF on leverage capital ratios. 22 This requirement is due to the non-recourse nature of the Federal Reserve's extension of credit to the banking organization, a protection that does not exist if the banking organization funds PPP loans using other sources of liquidity.

To remain consistent with the regulatory capital interim final rule, and consistent with the proposed rule for mitigating assessment effects of participation in the PPP, the FDIC will not modify its deposit insurance assessment pricing system with respect to the Tier 1 leverage ratio, which is one of the measures used to determine the assessment rate for small, large, and highly complex IDIs. Therefore, the neutralization of effects of participation in the PPPLF will be automatically reflected in an IDI's assessment because the FDIC's risk-based assessment system incorporates an IDI's regulatory capital reporting of its Tier 1 leverage ratio.

Three commenters asked that the FDIC post revised assessment calculators as soon as possible. The FDIC will post on its public website assessment calculators that reflect the revisions under the final rule once data for the reporting period ending on June 30, 2020 becomes available. 23

Under the final rule, to mitigate the assessment effect of PPP loans, the FDIC will exclude the outstanding amount of PPP loans held by an IDI and borrowings under the PPPLF, from various risk measures used in the calculation of an IDI's deposit insurance assessment rate, as described in more detail below.

The final rule excludes the outstanding balance of all PPP loans from total assets in risk measures used to determine an established small institution's assessment rate: the net income before taxes to total assets ratio, 24 the nonperforming loans and leases to gross assets ratio, the other real estate owned to gross assets ratio, the brokered deposit ratio, the one-year asset growth measure, and the loan mix index (LMI).

Under the proposal, for established small banks, the FDIC would have excluded the outstanding balance of loans pledged to the PPPLF from total assets in the calculation of these risk measures. As discussed above, some commenters recommended that the FDIC exclude all PPP loans from specific measures utilized throughout the assessment rate calculation for established small banks, including from the net income before taxes to total assets ratio, the nonperforming loans and leases to gross assets ratio, the other real estate owned to gross assets ratio, the brokered deposit ratio, and the one-year asset growth measure. For the reasons described above, under the final rule, the FDIC will exclude the quarter-end outstanding amount of PPP loans, whether or not they have been pledged to the PPPLF, from total assets in risk measures used to determine an established small institution's assessment rate.

The LMI is a measure of the extent to which an IDI's total assets include higher-risk categories of loans. Consistent with the proposed rule, under the final rule, the FDIC will exclude PPP loans, which include loans pledged to the PPPLF, from an institution's loan portfolio in calculating the LMI, based on a waterfall approach. 25 Under the final rule, the FDIC will first exclude the outstanding balance of PPP loans from the balance of C&I Loans in the calculation of the LMI. In the unlikely event that the outstanding balance of PPP loans exceeds the balance of C&I Loans, the FDIC will exclude any remaining balance of these loans from the balance of Agricultural Loans, up to the total amount of Agricultural Loans, in the calculation of the LMI. 26

While some commenters supported the assumptions applied under the waterfall approach described in the NPR, others viewed the approach as unnecessarily complex. Several commenters confirmed that PPP loans will be reported as C&I Loans, Agricultural Loans, or in All Other Loans. Two commenters suggested reporting PPP loans as a separate loan category on Schedule RC-C rather than in the form of additional memoranda items, while another two commenters supported the reporting revisions recently implemented to make the adjustments to the assessment system, noting that many institutions have already established processes to report these loans in existing categories on Schedule RC-C and would therefore view reporting PPP loans in a separate loan category rather than as a memoranda item as operationally burdensome. Two commenters supported reducing unnecessary data collection and categorization and reporting of PPP loans as C&I Loans.

The FDIC has considered these comments and is adopting the waterfall approach as proposed. The FDIC views the waterfall approach as the approach that most effectively balances the goal of minimizing reporting burden while providing reasonably accurate mitigation for most institutions of the assessment effect of PPP loans. Accordingly, the FDIC is adopting the proposed waterfall approach as final and will apply it, as appropriate, in the calculation of the LMI for small banks (and in the calculation of the growth-adjusted portfolio concentration measure and loss severity measure for large or highly complex banks, as discussed below).

Two commenters requested that all PPP loans be excluded from total assets in the calculation of the LMI while others expressed support for the proposed modifications to the LMI. Under the final rule and as described above, the FDIC will exclude the quarter-end outstanding balance of PPP loans from an IDI's loan portfolio (the numerator) and its total assets (the denominator) in the calculation of the LMI.

Under the final rule, the FDIC will remove the outstanding balance of PPP loans from a large or highly complex bank's loan portfolio and its total assets in calculating its assessment rate. As proposed, under the final rule the FDIC will also exclude amounts borrowed from the Federal Reserve Banks under the PPPLF from a large or highly complex bank's liabilities in calculating its assessment rate.

As described above, the FDIC received numerous comments stating that the proposed modifications would not completely offset the impact of PPP lending on assessment rates, and many of these commenters recommended that the FDIC exclude the outstanding balance of PPP loans when calculating a large or highly complex bank's assessment, rather than excluding only the loans pledged to the PPPLF. Specifically, several commenters recommended that the FDIC exclude all PPP loans from total assets in the calculation of the core earnings ratio and the average short-term funding measure for purposes of determining a large or highly complex bank's assessment rate. Some commenters specified that, in making these modifications, the FDIC should exclude the quarter-end balance of outstanding PPP loans, as opposed to the quarterly average.

For the reasons described above, under the final rule the FDIC will exclude the quarter-end outstanding amount of PPP loans, whether or not they have been pledged to the PPPLF, from total assets in the core earnings ratio  27 and the short-term funding measure  28 used to determine a large or highly complex institution's assessment rate.

As proposed, the FDIC will exclude PPP loans from an IDI's loan portfolio in risk measures used to determine a large or highly complex IDI's assessment rate. In calculating the growth-adjusted portfolio concentration measure, 29 which is applicable to large IDIs, the FDIC will exclude the quarter-end outstanding balance of PPP loans from C&I Loans. 30 In calculating the trading asset ratio, 31 which is applicable to highly complex IDIs, the FDIC will reduce the balance of loans by the quarter-end outstanding balance of PPP loans. 32 The FDIC also will exclude the quarter-end balance of outstanding PPP loans from a large or highly complex IDI's loan portfolio in calculating the loss severity measure, as described below.

A few commenters suggested that PPP loans should not be classified as “higher risk assets” in calculating the concentration measures for large or highly complex institutions. In response to these comments the FDIC is clarifying that government guaranteed loans are not considered “higher-risk assets” for assessment purposes. Because PPP loans are guaranteed by the SBA, they are already excluded from “higher-risk assets” in calculating the concentration measures for large or highly complex institutions and no additional modification is necessary. 33

As proposed, under the final rule the FDIC will exclude borrowings from the Federal Reserve Banks under the PPPLF from an institution's liabilities in the calculation of the core deposit ratio, the balance sheet liquidity ratio, and the loss severity measure used to determine a large or highly complex IDI's assessment rate. The final rule clarifies that the exclusion of amounts borrowed from the Federal Reserve Banks under the PPPLF from an institution's total liabilities will only affect risk measures used to determine the assessment rate for a large or highly complex IDI because secured liabilities are not factored into the risk measures for determining the rate for an established small IDI.

Under the final rule, in calculating the core deposit ratio  34 for large or highly complex IDI, the FDIC will exclude from total liabilities borrowings from Federal Reserve Banks under the PPPLF.

Also as proposed, under the final rule the FDIC will exclude an IDI's reported borrowings from the Federal Reserve Banks under the PPPLF with a remaining maturity of one year or less from liabilities included in the denominator of the balance sheet liquidity ratio. 35 Additionally, in calculating the balance sheet liquidity ratio, the FDIC will treat the quarter-end outstanding balance of PPP loans that exceed borrowings from the Federal Reserve Banks under the PPPLF as highly liquid assets, as proposed. Because PPP loans are riskless and banks with PPP loans in excess of PPPLF borrowings can access additional liquidity by pledging such loans to PPPLF, the FDIC will treat these PPP loans as highly liquid assets. To the extent that a PPP loan represents collateral for borrowings other than under the PPPLF—such as an FHLB advance—treating the loan as highly liquid will provide an assessment benefit for IDIs that may not be able to readily access additional liquidity. PPP loans can no longer be pledged as collateral to the PPPLF after September 30, 2020, the date after which no new extensions of credit will be made under the PPPLF, unless extended by the Board of Governors and the Department of Treasury. Therefore, under the final rule, the quarter-end outstanding balance of PPP loans that exceed borrowings from the Federal Reserve Banks under the PPPLF will be treated as highly liquid assets until September 30, 2020, unless the Board of Governors and the Department of Treasury extend the deadline to apply for new extensions of credit under the PPPLF.

The loss severity measure estimates the relative magnitude of potential losses to the DIF in the event of a large or highly complex IDI's failure. 36 Under the final rule, the FDIC will remove the effect of participation in the PPP and PPPLF, as proposed. In calculating the loss severity score under the final rule, the FDIC will remove the effect of PPP loans in an IDI's loan portfolio using a waterfall approach, as proposed. Under this approach, the FDIC will exclude PPP loans from an IDI's balance of C&I Loans. In the unlikely event that the outstanding balance of PPP loans exceeds the balance of C&I Loans, the FDIC will exclude any remaining balance from All Other Loans, up to the total amount of All Other Loans, followed by Agricultural Loans, up to the total amount of Agricultural Loans.

To the extent that an IDI's outstanding PPP loans are not pledged to the PPPLF, such loans may be funded by a variety of liabilities, such as deposits and secured borrowings. While IDIs will report borrowings under the PPPLF that are secured by PPP loans, the FDIC will not have sufficient data to determine other sources of funding for an IDI's PPP loans. Obtaining such data would require additional reporting burden on IDIs. Because the FDIC will not have sufficient data to remove each type of non-PPPLF funding used to make PPP loans, under the final rule the FDIC will remove PPP loans in excess of its PPPLF borrowings from a large or highly complex IDI's loan portfolio based on the waterfall approach described above and reallocate the same amount to cash. Such treatment of PPP loans is consistent with the proposal to treat PPP loans in excess of PPPLF borrowings as riskless for purposes of calculating a large or highly complex IDI's loss severity score.

To match the removal of PPP loans funded through borrowings under the PPPLF from an IDI's loan portfolio, the FDIC will remove the total amount of outstanding borrowings from the Federal Reserve Banks under the PPPLF from short- and long-term secured borrowings, as appropriate.

The FDIC proposed to exclude the quarterly average amount of loans pledged to the PPPLF and the quarterly average amount of assets purchased under the MMLF from the calculation of the unsecured debt adjustment, depository institution debt adjustment, and the brokered deposit adjustment. These adjustments would continue to be applied to an IDI's initial base assessment rate, as applicable, for purposes of calculating the IDI's total base assessment rate. 37

As adopted in the Dodd-Frank Act and further amended by the Helping Expand Lending Practices in Rural Communities Act of 2015, TILA sections 129C(b)(2)(E) and 129D(c) granted the Bureau authority, among other things, to create a special provision allowing the origination of balloon-payment qualified mortgages and an exemption from the requirement to establish an escrow account for higher-priced mortgage loans. 1 Through these amendments, Congress limited the class of creditors to which the Bureau may grant the special provision and exemption to include only certain creditors that operate in “rural” or “underserved” areas.

Section 1026.35(b)(2)(iv)(B) of Regulation Z defines an area as “underserved” during a calendar year if, according to HMDA data for the preceding calendar year, it is a county in which no more than two creditors extended covered transactions, as defined in § 1026.43(b)(1), secured by first liens on properties in the county five or more times. 2 Section 1026.43(b)(1) of Regulation Z defines a “covered transaction” as a consumer credit transaction that is secured by a dwelling, as defined in § 1026.2(a)(19), including any real property attached to a dwelling, other than a transaction exempt from coverage under § 1026.43(a). 3 Accordingly, in determining the number of first-lien covered transactions in an area for the purposes of determining whether an area is “underserved,” the Bureau would not count transactions that fail to meet the definition of a “covered transaction” as set forth in § 1026.43(b)(1), such as a home equity line of credit subject to § 1026.40.

The Bureau interpreted the definition of “underserved” in the official commentary to Regulation Z. In comment 35(b)(2)(iv)-1.ii, the Bureau stated that a county is an “underserved” area if, in the applicable calendar year's public HMDA aggregate dataset, no more than two creditors have reported five or more first-lien covered transactions with HMDA geocoding that places the properties in that county. For the purposes of this determination, because only covered transactions as defined in § 1026.43(b)(1) of Regulation Z are counted, all first-lien originations (and only first-lien originations) reported in the HMDA data are counted except those for which the owner-occupancy status is reported as “Not owner-occupied,” the property type is reported as “Multifamily,” the applicant's or co-applicant's race is reported as “Not applicable,” or the applicant's or co-applicant's sex is reported as “Not applicable.” Comment 35(b)(2)(iv)-1.ii also specified HMDA codes for each of these HMDA reporting categories.

In 2015, the Bureau issued a final rule amending Regulation C; for the most part, the 2015 amendments took effect on January 1, 2018. 4 Among other changes, the 2015 HMDA Final Rule amended Regulation C to include nine new data points as required by the Dodd-Frank Act; added a number of additional data points pursuant to the Bureau's discretionary authority under HMDA section 304(b)(5) and (6); and revised certain pre-existing data points to clarify or amend their requirements.

In light of these changes, certain parts of the methodology described in comment 35(b)(2)(iv)-1.ii became obsolete, as they referred to HMDA data points replaced or otherwise modified by the 2015 HMDA Final Rule. To avoid uncertainty concerning how HMDA data is to be used to determine the underserved status of a county, the Bureau is issuing this interpretive rule to supersede the outdated portions of the commentary and identify current HMDA data points it will use to determine whether a county is underserved.

Under this interpretive rule, the determination will be made by counting first-lien originations from HMDA data for the preceding calendar year, except those for which any of the following HMDA data points are reported with values we interpret as being inconsistent with Regulation Z's definition of a “covered transaction.”

Because a “covered transaction,” as defined in § 1026.43(b)(1) of Regulation Z, includes loans secured by residential structures that contain one to four units, the Bureau will not count first-lien originations reported in HMDA data for which the construction method status is reported as “Site-built” (HMDA Code 1) and the total units ( i.e., number of individual dwelling units related to the property) is reported as being greater than “4.”

The definition of a “covered transaction” in § 1026.43(b)(1) of Regulation Z excludes specific categories of loans, such as a home equity line of credit subject to § 1026.40. The definition of a “covered transaction” also excludes, for example, a reverse mortgage subject to § 1026.33, for the purposes of § 1026.43(f), which is the provision that permits creditors operating in underserved areas to originate qualified mortgages with balloon payments.

For these reasons, the Bureau will not count first-lien originations reported in HMDA data for which the open-end line of credit status is reported as “Open-end line of credit” (HMDA Code 1) or the reverse mortgage status is reported as “Reverse mortgage” (HMDA Code 1).

Regulation Z's “covered transaction” definition also excludes an extension of credit primarily for a business or commercial purpose. Accordingly, the Bureau will not count first-lien originations reported in HMDA data for which the business or commercial purpose status is reported as “Primarily for a business or commercial purpose” (HMDA Code 1).

As defined in § 1026.43(b)(1) of Regulation Z, a “covered transaction” is limited to transactions made to consumers, which § 1026.2(a)(11) of Regulation Z defines, in part, as a natural person to whom consumer credit is offered or extended.

Appendix B and comment 4(a)(10)(ii)-4 of Regulation C instruct covered financial institutions to report the applicant's or co-applicant's ethnicity, race, sex, and age as “not applicable” if the applicant or co-applicant is not a natural person. For these reasons, the Bureau will not count first-lien originations reported in HMDA data for which both the applicant's and co-applicant's ethnicity, race, sex, and age all are reported as follows: (1) The applicant's ethnicity is reported as “Not applicable” (HMDA Code 4); (2) the applicant's race is reported as “Not applicable” (HMDA Code 7); (3) the applicant's sex is reported as “Not applicable” (HMDA Code 4); (4) the applicant's age is reported as “Not applicable” (HMDA Code 8888); (5) the co-applicant's ethnicity is reported as “Not applicable” (HMDA Code 4) or “No co-applicant” (HMDA Code 5); (6) the co-applicant's race is reported as “Not applicable” (HMDA Code 7) or “No co-applicant” (HMDA Code 8); (7) the co-applicant's sex is reported as “Not applicable” (HMDA Code 4) or “No co-applicant” (HMDA Code 5); and (8) the co-applicant's age is reported as “Not applicable” (HMDA Code 8888) or “No co-applicant” (HMDA Code 9999).

The underserved counties list, using the HMDA data described above, can be found on the Bureau's public website at https://www.consumerfinance.gov/policy-compliance/guidance/mortgage-resources/rural-and-underserved-counties-list/, where, consistent with past practice, the list is made available along with historical lists.

The Bureau is issuing this interpretive rule based on its authority to interpret 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 Federal consumer financial laws. 5

By operation of TILA section 130(f), no provision of TILA sections 130, 108(b), 108(c), 108(e), or 112 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, the interpretive rule is amended, rescinded, or determined by judicial or other authority to be invalid for any reason. 6

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. 7 Therefore, this rule is effective on June 26, 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. 8 Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not require an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis. 9

The Bureau has determined that this interpretive rule does not impose any new requirements or revise any existing recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirements on covered entities or members of the public that would be collections of information requiring approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 10

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 11 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, 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, have been 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, have been 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 PPP. On June 5, 2020, the President signed the Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act of 2020 (Flexibility Act) (Pub. L. 116-142), which changed provisions of the PPP relating to the maturity of PPP loans, the deferral of PPP loan payments, and the forgiveness of PPP loans.

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 Act without regard to notice requirements. In addition, SBA has determined that there is good cause for dispensing with advance public notice and comment on the grounds that that it would be contrary to the public interest. Specifically, advance public notice and comment would defeat the purpose of this interim final rule given that SBA's authority to guarantee PPP loans expires on June 30, 2020. These same reasons provide good cause for SBA to dispense with the 30-day delayed effective date provided in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Although this interim final rule is effective on or before date of filing, 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 July 27, 2020. The SBA will consider these comments, comments received on the interim final rule posted on SBA's website April 2, 2020 (the First Interim Final Rule) and published in the Federal Register on April 15, 2020, comments received on the interim final rule posted on SBA's website June 12, 2020 and published in the Federal Register on June 18, 2010, 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 businesses affected by the COVID-19 emergency. Among the provisions contained in the CARES Act are provisions authorizing SBA to temporarily guarantee loans under a new 7(a) loan program titled the “Paycheck Protection Program.” Loans guaranteed under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) will be 100 percent guaranteed by SBA, and the full principal amount of the loans may qualify for loan forgiveness. The purpose of this interim final rule is to make further changes to the First Interim Final Rule, posted on SBA's website on April 2, 2020, and published in the Federal Register on April 15, 2020 (85 FR 20811), as amended by the interim final rule posted on SBA's website on June 12, 2020 and published in the Federal Register on June 18, 2020 (85 FR 36717). The First Interim Final Rule, as amended, should be interpreted consistent with the frequently asked questions (FAQs) regarding the PPP that are posted on SBA's website  1 and the other interim final rules issued regarding the PPP. 2

The First Interim Final Rule provided, among other things, that a PPP loan will not be approved if an owner of 20 percent or more of the equity of the applicant has been convicted of a felony within the last five years. On June 12, 2020, the First Interim Final Rule was amended after the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury (the Secretary), determined that a shorter timeframe for felonies that do not involve fraud, bribery, embezzlement, or a false statement in a loan application or an application for federal financial assistance is more consistent with Congressional intent to provide relief to small businesses and also promotes the important policies underlying the First Step Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-391).

Upon further consideration, and in consultation with the Secretary, the Administrator has determined that two additional modifications to the First Interim Final Rule are appropriate to ensure a consistent approach to applicants with criminal histories. First, the First Interim Final Rule provided that an applicant is ineligible for a PPP loan if an owner of 20 percent or more of the equity of the applicant is presently subject to an indictment, criminal information, arraignment, or other means by which formal criminal charges are brought in any jurisdiction. The Administrator has determined that this restriction should be limited to pending criminal charges for felony offenses, which aligns with the Administrator's prior determination that only felony convictions (but not convictions for other types of offenses) will limit an applicant's eligibility for the PPP, subject to the time periods specified above. Second, the First Interim Final Rule provided that an applicant was ineligible for a PPP loan if an owner of 20 percent or more of the equity of the applicant is on probation or on parole. The Administrator has determined that this restriction should be limited to individuals whose probation or parole commenced within the time periods specified above— i.e., within the last five years for any felony involving fraud, bribery, embezzlement, or a false statement in a loan application or an application for federal financial assistance, and within the last one year for other felonies. Applying these time limitations to the probation and parole restriction aligns with the Administrator's prior determination to apply the identical time limitations to felony convictions. Moreover, aligning the time limitations applicable to these restrictions is consistent with Congressional intent to provide relief to small businesses and also promotes the important policies underlying the First Step Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-391). This amendment does not affect the rule regarding applicants that are presently suspended, debarred, or proposed for debarment, which remains effective. Therefore, Part III.2.b.iii. of the First Interim Final Rule (85 FR 20811, 20812) is revised to read as follows:

b. Could I be ineligible even if I meet the eligibility requirements in (a) above?

You are ineligible for a PPP loan if, for example:

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, 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, have been 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, have been 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 PPP. On June 5, 2020, the President signed the Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act of 2020 (Flexibility Act) (Pub. L. 116-142), which changes key provisions of the Paycheck Protection Program, including provisions relating to the maturity of PPP loans, the deferral of PPP loan payments, and the forgiveness of PPP loans. Section 3(d) of the Flexibility Act provides that the amendments relating to PPP loan forgiveness and extension of the deferral period for PPP loans shall be effective as if included in the CARES Act, which means that they are retroactive to March 27, 2020. Section 2 of the Flexibility Act provides that the amendment relating to the extension of the maturity date for PPP loans shall take effect on the date of enactment (June 5, 2020). Under the Flexibility Act, the extension of the maturity date for PPP loans is applicable to PPP loans made on or after that date, and lenders and borrowers may mutually agree to modify PPP loans made before such date to reflect the longer maturity.

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 Act without regard to notice requirements. In addition, SBA has determined that there is good cause for dispensing with advance public notice and comment on the grounds that it would be contrary to the public interest. Specifically, advance public notice and comment would defeat the purpose of this interim final rule given that SBA's authority to guarantee PPP loans expires on June 30, 2020, and that many PPP borrowers can now apply for loan forgiveness following the end of their eight-week covered period. Providing borrowers and lenders with certainty on both loan requirements and loan forgiveness requirements following the enactment of the Flexibility Act will enhance the ability of lenders to make loans and process loan forgiveness applications, particularly in light of the fact that most of the Flexibility Act's provisions are retroactive to March 27, 2020. Specifically, small businesses that have yet to apply for and receive a PPP loan need to be informed of the terms of PPP loans as soon as possible, because the last day on which a lender can obtain an SBA loan number for a PPP loan is June 30, 2020. Borrowers that have already applied for and received a PPP loan need certainty regarding how loan proceeds must be used during the covered period, as amended by the Flexibility Act, so that they can maximize the amount of loan forgiveness. Additionally, because some borrowers can apply for loan forgiveness now, those borrowers need updated direction on how to do so. These same reasons provide good cause for SBA to dispense with the 30-day delayed effective date provided in the Administrative Procedure Act. Although this interim final rule is effective on or before date of filing, 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 July 27, 2020. The SBA and Treasury will consider these comments, comments received on the two interim final rules amended by this interim final rule, which were posted on SBA's website May 22, 2020 and published on June 1, 2020, in the Federal Register , 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 businesses affected by the COVID-19 emergency. Among the provisions contained in the CARES Act are provisions authorizing SBA to temporarily guarantee loans under a new 7(a) loan program titled the “Paycheck Protection Program.” Loans guaranteed under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) will be 100 percent guaranteed by SBA, and the full principal amount of the loans may qualify for loan forgiveness.

SBA and Treasury have posted several documents on the loan forgiveness provisions in the CARES Act on their websites. On April 2, 2020, SBA posted its first PPP interim final rule (85 FR 20811) covering in part loan forgiveness. On April 8, 2020 and April 26, 2020, SBA also posted Frequently Asked Questions relating to loan forgiveness. On April 14, 2020, SBA posted an interim final rule covering in part loan forgiveness for individuals with self-employment income. On May 22, 2020, SBA and Treasury jointly posted an additional interim final rule on loan forgiveness (85 FR 33004) (First Loan Forgiveness Rule). The SBA also posted an interim final rule on May 22, 2020 on SBA loan review procedures and related borrower and lender responsibilities (85 FR 33010) (First Loan Review Rule). On June 11, 2020, SBA posted an interim final rule revising the first PPP interim final rule to incorporate Flexibility Act amendments, including those relating to loan forgiveness. On June 17, 2020, SBA posted an interim final rule revising the interim final rule covering individuals with self-employment income to incorporate Flexibility Act amendments, including those relating to loan forgiveness.

The Flexibility Act amends the CARES Act, including its provisions relating to loan terms and loan forgiveness. The purpose of this interim final rule is to update the First Loan Forgiveness Rule and the First Loan Review Rule in light of the amendments under the Flexibility Act. The First Loan Forgiveness Rule and First Loan Review Rule, as amended by this interim final rule, should be interpreted consistent with the frequently asked questions (FAQs) regarding the PPP that are posted on SBA's website  1 and the other interim final rules issued regarding the PPP. 2

Section 3(b) of the Flexibility Act amended the requirements regarding forgiveness of PPP loans to reduce, from 75 percent to 60 percent, the portion of PPP loan proceeds that must be used for payroll costs for the full amount of the PPP loan to be eligible for forgiveness. Therefore, Part III.1 of the First Loan Forgiveness Rule (85 FR 33004, 33005) is revised by striking “25 percent” in the last sentence and replacing it with “40 percent”.

Section 2(a) of the Flexibility Act provides a minimum maturity of five years for all PPP loans made on or after the date of enactment of the Flexibility Act (June 5, 2020), and permits lenders and borrowers to extend the maturity date of earlier PPP loans by mutual agreement. Section 3(c) of the Flexibility Act extended the deferral period for PPP loans to the date that SBA remits the forgiveness amount to the lender. Further, SBA has issued an alternative Loan Forgiveness Application Form, SBA Form 3508EZ. Therefore, in Part III.2 of the First Loan Forgiveness Rule (85 FR 33004, 33005), the introductory question is redesignated as paragraph a. and revised to read as follows:

Section 3(c) of the Flexibility Act provides that if the borrower does not apply for forgiveness of a loan within 10 months after the last day of the covered period, the PPP loan is no longer deferred and the borrower must begin paying principal and interest. Therefore, the following text is added as a new paragraph b. at the end of Part III.2:

Under section 1106 of the CARES Act, certain provisions regarding the forgiveness of PPP loans are limited to the “covered period.” “Covered period,” as that term is used in section 1106 of the CARES Act, was originally defined as the eight-week period beginning on the date of the origination of a covered loan. However, section 3(b) of the Flexibility Act extended the length of the covered period as defined in section 1106 of the CARES Act from eight to 24 weeks, while allowing borrowers that received PPP loans before June 5, 2020 to elect to use the original eight-week covered period. As set forth below, several provisions in Part III.3 of the First Loan Forgiveness Rule require revisions to conform to these amendments under Flexibility Act.

Part III.3.a of the First Loan Forgiveness Rule (85 FR 33004, 33006) is revised to read as follows:

Part III.3.c of the First Loan Forgiveness Rule (85 FR 33004, 33006) is revised to read as follows:

Part III.4.a of the First Loan Forgiveness Rule (85 FR 33004, 33007) is revised to read as follows:

As described above, section 3(b) of the Flexibility Act amended provisions of the CARES Act regarding the covered period and the portion of PPP loan proceeds that must be used for payroll costs for the full amount of the PPP loan to be eligible for forgiveness. As set forth below, these amendments necessitate several revisions to Part III.5 of the First Loan Forgiveness Rule. First, the introductory paragraph in Part III.5 of the First Loan Forgiveness Rule (85 FR 33004, 33007) is revised to read as follows:

Section 1106 of the CARES Act, as amended by Section 3(b)(2) of the Flexibility Act, specifically requires certain reductions in a borrower's loan forgiveness amount based on reductions in full-time equivalent employees or in employee salary and wages, subject to an important statutory exemption for borrowers that have eliminated the reduction on or before December 31, 2020. Section 3(b)(2) of the Flexibility Act also adds exemptions from reductions in loan forgiveness amounts based on employee availability and business activity. In addition, SBA and Treasury have adopted a regulatory exemption to the reduction rules for borrowers that have offered to restore employee hours at the same salary or wages, even if the employees have not accepted. The instructions to the loan forgiveness applications and the guidance below explains how the statutory forgiveness reduction formulas work.

Section 1106(d)(2) of the CARES Act reduces the amount of the PPP loan that may be forgiven if the borrower reduces full-time equivalent employees during the covered period as compared to a base period selected by the borrower. Section 1106(d)(5) of the CARES Act originally waived this reduction in the forgiveness amount if the borrower eliminates the reduction in full-time equivalent employees occurring during a different statutory reference period by not later than June 30, 2020. Section 3(b)(2) of the Flexibility Act amended this provision to replace “June 30” with “December 31.” To conform the First Loan Forgiveness Rule to this amendment under the Flexibility Act, Part III.5.a of the First Loan Forgiveness Rule (85 FR 33004, 33007) is revised by striking “June 30, 2020” and replacing it with “December 31, 2020.” Section 3(d) of the Flexibility Act provides that this amendment shall be effective as if included in the CARES Act, which was enacted on March 27, 2020.

As described above, section 3(b) of the Flexibility Act extended the length of the covered period as defined in section 1106 of the CARES Act from eight to 24 weeks, while allowing borrowers that received PPP loans before June 5, 2020 to elect to use the original eight-week covered period. For consistency with this amendment, the paragraph consisting of the example in Part III.5.e of the First Loan Forgiveness Rule (85 FR 33004, 33008) is revised to provide two examples that read as follows:

In light of the amendments under the Flexibility Act described above, Part III.5.g of the First Loan Forgiveness Rule (85 FR 33004, 33009) is revised by striking “June 30, 2020” each place that it appears and replacing it with “December 31, 2020,” and by striking “75 percent” and replacing it with “60 percent.” Section 3(d) of the Flexibility Act provides that these amendments shall be effective as if included in the CARES Act, which was enacted on March 27, 2020.

Lastly, section 3(b)(2)(B) of the Flexibility Act established two new exemptions based on employee availability and business activity, respectively, that would eliminate a reduction in the loan forgiveness amount that would otherwise be required due to a reduction in full-time equivalent (FTE) employees. Specifically, that section of the Flexibility Act states that the amount of loan forgiveness “shall be determined without regard to a proportional reduction in the number of full-time equivalent employees” if an eligible recipient, in good faith, (A) is able to document (i) an inability to rehire individuals who were employees of the eligible recipient on February 15, 2020; and (ii) an inability to hire similarly qualified employees for unfilled positions on or before December 31, 2020; or (B) is able to document an inability to return to the same level of business activity as such business was operating at before February 15, 2020, due to compliance with requirements established or guidance issued by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the Occupational Safety and Health Administration during the period beginning on March 1, 2020, and ending December 31, 2020, related to the maintenance of standards for sanitation, social distancing, or any other worker or customer safety requirement related to COVID-19. The new exemption pertaining to individuals who refuse an offer to be rehired is very similar, but not identical, to a de minimis exemption that was provided in the First Loan Forgiveness Rule; therefore, the Administrator and the Secretary have determined that this new statutory exemption should supersede the previous de minimis exemption relating to reductions in FTE employees. However, a related de minimis exemption in the First Loan Forgiveness Rule for borrowers that have reduced the hours of an employee and offered to restore the reduction in hours, but the employee declined the offer, is not addressed in the Flexibility Act and is therefore being retained.

In order to implement these exemptions, Part III.5.a of the First Loan Forgiveness Rule (85 FR 33004, 33007) is revised to read:

In addition, Part III.5.b of the First Loan Forgiveness Rule (85 FR 33004, 33007-08) is revised by adding the following at the end thereof:

Because SBA has issued an alternative loan forgiveness application, SBA Form 3508EZ, the parenthetical in the first sentence of Part III.6 of the First Loan Forgiveness Rule (85 FR 33004, 33009) is revised to read as follows: “(SBA Form 3508 or SBA Form 3508EZ, as applicable, or lender equivalent)”.

The First Loan Review Rule informs borrowers and lenders of SBA's process for reviewing PPP loan applications and loan forgiveness applications. Because SBA has issued an alternative Loan Forgiveness Application, SBA Form 3508EZ, the following changes are necessary.

Parts III.1.b and III.1.e are revised by striking each reference in those sections to “SBA Form 3508 or lender's equivalent form” and replacing it with “SBA Form 3508, 3508EZ, or lender's equivalent form”.

As noted above, SBA has issued an alternative Loan Forgiveness Application Form, SBA Form 3508EZ. Further, Section 3(b)(2) of the Flexibility Act reduced, from 75 percent to 60 percent, the portion of PPP loan proceeds that must be used for payroll costs for the full amount of the PPP loan to be eligible for forgiveness. As set forth below, these developments necessitate several revisions to Part III.2 of the First Loan Review Rule.

Part III.2.a. is revised to read as follows:

When a borrower submits SBA Form 3508 or lender's equivalent form, the lender shall:

When the borrower submits SBA Form 3508EZ or lender's equivalent form, the lender shall:

Providing an accurate calculation of the loan forgiveness amount is the responsibility of the borrower, and the borrower attests to the accuracy of its reported information and calculations on the Loan Forgiveness Application Form. Lenders are expected to perform a good-faith review, in a reasonable time, of the borrower's calculations and supporting documents concerning amounts eligible for loan forgiveness. For example, minimal review of calculations based on a payroll report by a recognized third-party payroll processor would be reasonable. By contrast, if payroll costs are not documented with such recognized sources, more extensive review of calculations and data would be appropriate. The borrower shall not receive forgiveness without submitting all required documentation to the lender.

As the First Interim Final Rule  8 indicates, lenders may rely on borrower representations. If the lender identifies errors in the borrower's calculation or material lack of substantiation in the borrower's supporting documents, the lender should work with the borrower to remedy the issue. As stated in paragraph III.3.c of the First Interim Final Rule, the lender does not need to independently verify the borrower's reported information if the borrower submits documentation supporting its request for loan forgiveness and attests that it accurately verified the payments for eligible costs.

Part III.2.b. is revised to read as follows:

The lender must confirm that the information provided by the lender to SBA accurately reflects lender's records for the loan, and that the lender has made its decision in accordance with the requirements set forth in 2.a. If the lender determines that the borrower is entitled to forgiveness of some or all of the amount applied for under the statute and applicable regulations, the lender must request payment from SBA at the time the lender issues its decision to SBA. SBA will, subject to any SBA review of the loan or loan application, remit the appropriate forgiveness amount to the lender, plus any interest accrued through the date of payment, not later than 90 days after the lender issues its decision to SBA. If applicable, SBA will deduct EIDL Advance Amounts from the forgiveness amount remitted to the Lender as required by section 1110(e)(6) of the CARES Act. The lender is responsible for notifying the borrower of remittance by SBA of the loan forgiveness amount (or that SBA determined that no amount of the loan is eligible for forgiveness) and the date on which the borrower's first payment is due, if applicable.

When the lender issues its decision to SBA determining that the borrower is not entitled to forgiveness in any amount, the lender must provide SBA with the reason for its denial, together with the following:

The lender must confirm that the information provided by the lender to SBA accurately reflects lender's records for the loan, and that the lender has made its decision in accordance with the requirements set forth in 2.a. The lender must also notify the borrower in writing that the lender has issued a decision to SBA denying the loan forgiveness application. SBA reserves the right to review the lender's decision in its sole discretion. Within 30 days of notice from the lender, a borrower may notify the lender that it is requesting that SBA review the lender's decision by reviewing the loan in accordance with 2.c. below. Within 5 days of receipt, the lender must notify SBA of the borrower's request for review. SBA will notify the lender if SBA declines a request for review. If the borrower does not request SBA review or SBA declines the request for review, the lender is responsible for notifying the borrower of the date on which the borrower's first payment is due. If SBA accepts a borrower's request for review, SBA will notify the borrower and the lender of the results of the review. If SBA denies forgiveness in whole or in part, the lender is responsible for notifying the borrower of the date on which the borrower's first payment is due.

Enabling SBA to use the statutory 90-day period to review the PPP loan and forgiveness documentation is an appropriate procedural protection to prevent fraud or misuse of PPP funds, ensure that recipients of PPP loans are within the scope of entities that the CARES Act is intended to assist, and confirm compliance with the PPP requirements set forth in the statute, rules, and guidance. This protection is also important in light of the large number and diverse types of PPP lenders, many of which were not previously SBA participating lenders and which were approved rapidly in order to enable financial assistance to be provided as rapidly as feasible to millions of small businesses. SBA will use the 90-day period to help ensure that applicable legal requirements have been satisfied.

Part III.2.c.ii. is revised to read as follows:

SBA may provide further guidance, if needed, through SBA notices which 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 and Treasury have 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 and Treasury have 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 and Treasury have determined that this rule modifies existing information collection. The amendments to the PPP made by the Flexibility Act and implemented in this interim final rule require conforming revisions to the Paycheck Protection Program—Loan Forgiveness Application (SBA Form 3508), for use in collecting the information required to determine whether a borrower is eligible for loan forgiveness. In addition, SBA has developed a streamlined Paycheck Protection Program—PPP Loan Forgiveness Application Form 3508EZ (SBA Form 3508 EZ), which is available for borrowers meeting criteria described in the instructions accompanying the form. SBA has obtained OMB approval of the modification to the existing information collection, which is currently approved as an emergency request under OMB Control Number 3245-0407 until October 31, 2020.

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 and Treasury are not required to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis.

The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2020-0124, dated May 29, 2020 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to address an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0612.

The FAA reviewed Rolls-Royce plc (RR) Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) Trent 1000 73-AK581, dated May 12, 2020. The Alert NMSB introduces a reduced life limit for fuel pumps installed on affected engines.

This product has been approved by EASA and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. The FAA is issuing this AD because it evaluated all the relevant information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

This AD requires removal of the affected fuel pump and its replacement with a part eligible for installation.

RR Alert NMSB Trent 1000 73-AK581, dated May 12, 2020, recommends removal of D2-rated engine fuel pumps with more than 17,000 hours (or 5,200 cycles) by May 31, 2020, and more than 16,000 hours (or 4,900 cycles) by June 30, 2020, or within 3 engine flight cycles, whichever is later. Since this AD will become effective after the RRD recommended compliance date of June 30, 2020, this AD requires removal of D2-rated engine fuel pumps before exceeding 16,000 hours time in service or 4,900 engine cycles since new or since last overhaul. This AD also provides a 30-day grace period for compliance.

Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency, for “good cause,” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under this section, an agency, upon finding good cause, may issue a final rule without seeking comment prior to the rulemaking. Similarly, Section 553(d) of the APA authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than 30 days, upon a finding of good cause.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule. An unexpected reduction in fuel pump performance was seen during testing of high life fuel pumps. The reduced fuel pump performance could lead to reduced engine thrust, resulting in reduced control of the airplane. These fuel pumps must be removed and replaced before exceeding the reduced life-limits or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

The FAA considers the removal of these fuel pumps from service to be an urgent safety issue. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). In addition, for the reasons stated above, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, the FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2020-0612 and Project Identifier MCAI-2020-00674-E at the beginning of your comments. The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this final rule. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.

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

Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this final rule contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this final rule, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this final rule. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Stephen Elwin, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt this rule without notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 11 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

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

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

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

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

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2019-0842 in the Federal Register (84 FR 67381; December 10, 2019), amending VOR Federal airways V-59, V-92, V-115, and V-117 due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Newcomerstown, OH, VOR/DME NAVAID. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

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

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

The Choo Choo VOR/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) NAVAID listed in the V-115 description is actually located in Chattanooga, Tennessee. As such, the state abbreviation for the NAVAID listed in the description should reflect the abbreviation “TN” instead of “GA”. This editorial correction to the V-115 description is included in this action.

The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying VOR Federal airways V-59, V-92, V-115, and V-117. The planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Newcomerstown, OH, VOR/DME NAVAID has made this action necessary. The VOR Federal airway changes are described below.

V-59: V-59 extends between the Pulaski, VA, VORTAC and the Newcomerstown, OH, VOR/DME. The airway segment between the Parkersburg, WV, VOR/DME and the Newcomerstown, OH, VOR/DME is removed. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain as charted.

V-92: V-92 extends between the Chicago Heights, IL, VORTAC and the Goshen, IN, VORTAC; and between the Newcomerstown, OH, VOR/DME and the Bellaire, OH, VOR/DME. The airway segment between the Newcomerstown, OH, VOR/DME and the Bellaire, OH, VOR/DME is removed. The unaffected portion of the existing airway remains as charted.

V-115: V-115 extends between the Crestview, FL, VORTAC and the Franklin, PA, VOR/DME. The airway segment between the Parkersburg, WV, VORTAC and the Franklin, PA, VOR/DME is removed. Additionally, an editorial correction changes the state abbreviation for the Choo Choo VORTAC listed in the description from “GA” to “TN”. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain as charted.

V-117: V-117 extends between the Parkersburg, WV, VORTAC and the intersection of the Bellaire, OH, VOR/DME 044° radial and the Newcomerstown, OH, VOR/DME 099° radial (WISKE fix). The WISKE fix in the airway description is amended to describe it as the intersection of the Bellaire, OH, VOR/DME 044° and the Briggs, OH, VOR/DME 136° radials. The existing airway remains as charted.

The NAVAID radials listed in the VOR Federal airway descriptions below are stated in True degrees.

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

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

The FAA has determined that this action of modifying VOR Federal airways V-59, V-92, V-115, and V-117 in the vicinity of Newcomerstown, OH, due to the VOR portion of the Newcomerstown, OH, VOR/DME being decommissioned, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points). As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. The FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the National Airspace System as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register for Docket No. FAA-2018-0990 (83 FR 63601; December 11, 2018), amending VOR Federal airways V-128 and V-144 due to the planned decommissioning of the Kankakee, IL, VOR. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

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

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

The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying VOR Federal airways V-128 and V-144. The planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Kankakee, IL, VOR/DME has made these actions necessary. The VOR Federal airway changes are outlined below.

V-128: V-128 extends between the Janesville, WI, VOR/DME and the Casanova, VA, VOR/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC). The airway segment between the Janesville, WI, VOR/DME and the Brickyard, IN, VORTAC is removed. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain as charted.

V-144: V-144 extends between the Bradford, IL, VORTAC and the Linden, VA, VOR/DME. The airway segment between the Bradford, IL, VORTAC and the Fort Wayne, IN, VORTAC is removed. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain as charted.

The NAVAID radials listed in the VOR Federal airway descriptions below are unchanged and stated in True degrees.

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

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

The FAA has determined that this action of modifying VOR Federal airways V-128 and V-144 near Kankakee, IL, due to the VOR portion of the Kankakee, IL, VOR/DME being decommissioned, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points). As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. The FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for Docket No. FAA-2020-0188 in the Federal Register (85 FR 16585; March 24, 2020), amending Jet Route J-6, VOR Federal airways V-5, V-49, and V-243, and RNAV routes Q-68 and T-325 in the vicinity of Bowling Green, KY. The amendments were necessary due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Bowling Green, KY, VORTAC. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

Jet routes are published in paragraph 2004, RNAV Q-routes are published in paragraph 2006, VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a), and RNAV T-routes are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA Order 7400.11D, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The ATS routes listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.

The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify Jet Route J-6, VOR Federal airways V-5, V-49, and V-243, and RNAV routes Q-68 and T-325. The planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Bowling Green, KY, VORTAC has made these amendments necessary. This rule also corrects the state listed for the Choo Choo VORTAC, located in Chattanooga, TN, from “GA” to “TN” in the V-5 and V-243 descriptions. The ATS route amendments are described below.

J-6: J-6 extends between the Salinas, CA, VORTAC and the Albany, NY, VORTAC. The route segment between the Little Rock, AR, VORTAC and the Charleston, WV, VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) is removed. The unaffected portions of the existing route remain as charted.

Q-68: Q-68 extends between the Charleston, WV, VOR/DME and the OTTTO, VA, waypoint located near the Linden, VA, VORTAC. The route is extended westward from the Charleston, WV, VOR/DME to the LITTR, AR, waypoint established near the Little Rock, AR, VORTAC. The unaffected portions of the existing route remain as charted.

V-5: V-5 extends between the Pecan, GA, VOR/DME and the Appleton, OH, VORTAC. The airway segment between the Choo Choo, TN, VORTAC and the New Hope, KY, VOR/DME is removed. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain as charted.

V-49: V-49 extends between the Vulcan, AL, VORTAC and the Mystic, KY, VOR. The airway segment between the Nashville, TN, VORTAC and the Mystic, KY, VOR is removed. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain as charted.

V-243: V-243 extends between the Craig, FL, VORTAC and the Bowling Green, KY, VORTAC. The airway segment between the Choo Choo, TN, VORTAC and the Bowling Green, KY, VORTAC is removed. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain as charted.

T-325: T-325 extends between the Bowling Green, KY, VORTAC and the Terre Haute, IN, VORTAC. The Bowling Green, KY (BWG), route point is changed from being listed as a “VORTAC” to a “DME”. Additionally, the Bowling Green, KY, “BWG” identifier and Terre Haute, IN, “TTH” identifier are added to the first line of the route description and the geographic coordinates of each route point are expressed in degrees, minutes, seconds, and hundredths of a second. The existing RNAV route remains as charted.

The NAVAID radials listed in the ATS route descriptions below are unchanged and stated in True degrees.

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

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

The FAA has determined that this action of modifying Jet Route J-6, VOR Federal airways V-5, V-49, and V-243, and RNAV routes Q-68 and T-325, due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Bowling Green, KY, VORTAC NAVAID, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points). As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. The FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify the route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.

The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for Docket No. FAA-2020-0306 in the Federal Register (85 FR 17792; March 31, 2020), amending VOR Federal airway V-52 in the vicinity of Bowling Green, KY, due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Bowling Green, KY, VORTAC. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

Subsequent to the NPRM, the FAA published a rule for Docket No. FAA-2020-0008 in the Federal Register (85 FR 26601; May 5, 2020), amending VOR Federal airway V-52 by removing the airway segment between the Pocket City, IN, VORTAC and the Bowling Green, KY, VORTAC. That airway amendment, effective July 16, 2020, is included in this rule.

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

The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify VOR Federal airway V-52 due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Bowling Green, KY, VORTAC. The VOR Federal airway action is described below.

V-52: V-52 extends between the Des Moines, IA, VORTAC and the Pocket City, IN, VORTAC; and between the Bowling Green, KY, VORTAC and the Livingston, TN, VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME). The airway segment between the Bowling Green, KY, VORTAC and the Livingston, TN, VOR/DME is removed. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain as charted.

The NAVAID radials listed in the V-52 description below are unchanged and stated in True degrees.

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

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

The FAA has determined that this action of modifying VOR Federal airway V-52, due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Bowling Green, KY, VORTAC, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points). As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. The FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

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

The Irish Peace Process Cultural and Training Program Act of 1998, Public Law 105-319, created what is commonly referred to as the Walsh Visa Program. This program allowed young people from disadvantaged areas of Northern Ireland and designated counties of the Republic of Ireland suffering from sectarian violence and high structural unemployment to temporarily enter the United States to develop job skills and conflict resolution abilities in a diverse, cooperative, peaceful, and prosperous environment. At the conclusion of their stay, these young people were expected to return to their homes better able to contribute toward economic regeneration and the Irish peace process.

The Department promulgated the regulations at 22 CFR part 139 to implement the Walsh Visa Program. At the same time, the Department promulgated the regulations in Part 41 related to the Q2 and Q3 nonimmigrant visa classifications for eligible individuals. This visa program ended on September 30, 2008. Initially established with a September 20, 2005, end date, the visa program was extended through September 30, 2008, by Public Law 108-449. The regulations for administering the program became obsolete upon the expiration of the program in 2008. The Department is therefore removing the program-related regulations at 22 CFR part 139, and the corresponding visa regulations at 22 CFR part 41, including sections 41.57(b), 41.101(f), and the obsolete classification codes for Q2 and Q3 visas at 22 CFR 41.12.

This rule is issued without prior notice and opportunity to comment, with an immediate effective date, pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (d). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), agencies are exempt from notice and comment rulemaking when an agency finds for good cause that “notice and public procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The APA also authorizes agencies to dispose of a 30-day delay in effective date and make a rule effective immediately upon a showing of good cause. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The Department finds that good cause exists both to waive prior notice and comment and the 30-day delay of effective date on this rule because public comment is unnecessary. This program ended on September 30, 2008, making this rule obsolete. The program to which the rule relates is no longer authorized. Therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (d), this rule is effective immediately and is not subject to the notice-and-comment rule making procedures set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553.

Because this final rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553, it is exempt from the regulatory flexibility analysis requirements set forth by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604).

This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

This rule is not a major rule as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and import markets.

The Department does not consider this rule to be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review. The Department has nevertheless reviewed the regulation to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in that Executive Order with the guidance therein. This rule withdraws defunct regulations and thus will not impose any costs on the public. This rule is an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action.

This rulemaking will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor will the rule have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders 12372 and 13132.

The Department has determined that this rulemaking will not have tribal implications, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not preempt tribal law. Accordingly, the requirements of Section 5 of Executive Order 13175 do not apply to this rulemaking.

This rule does not impose or revise any reporting or record-keeping requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, 22 CFR parts 41 and 139 are amended as follows:

The Department has identified a regulation relating to defunct immigrant visa classifications for certain former U.S. citizens that is unnecessary. As a result of Section 3 of the Act of March 2, 1907, 34 Stat. 1228, some U.S. citizen women lost their United States citizenship as a result of a marriage prior September 22, 1922. This provision was repealed by the Cable Act of 1922, 42 Stat. 1022.

Between 1907 and 1922, some U.S. citizen women lost their U.S. citizenship due to their marriage to an alien, or to a U.S. citizen who acquired another citizenship. Department regulations at 22 CFR 42.23(a) described an immigrant visa classification that was available to such women. The last visa issued in this category was issued in 1998, and it is unlikely that any person eligible for this category is still living. Therefore, the Department is removing this unnecessary regulation.

This rule is issued without prior notice and opportunity to comment, with an immediate effective date, pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (d). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), agencies are exempt from notice and comment rulemaking when an agency finds for good cause that “notice and public procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The APA also authorizes agencies to dispose of a 30-day delay in effective date and make a rule effective immediately upon a showing of good cause. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The Department finds that good cause exists both to waive prior notice and comment and the 30-day delay of effective date on this rule because both are unnecessary. The last visa issued within this category was in 1998, and it is unlikely that eligible invdividualsindividuals are still living, making this rule both outdated and unnecessary. As a result, removal of this rule is insignificant in nature and impact, and inconsequential to the public. Therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (d), this rule is effective immediately and is not subject to the notice-and-comment rule making procedures set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553.

Because this final rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553, it is exempt from the regulatory flexibility analysis requirements set forth by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604).

This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

This rule is not a major rule as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and import markets.

The Department does not consider this rule to be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review. The Department has nevertheless reviewed the regulation to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in that Executive Order with the guidance therein. This rule withdraws defunct regulations and will not impose any costs on the public. This rule is an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action.

This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor will the rule have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders 12372 and 13132.

The Department has determined that this rulemaking will not have tribal implications, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not preempt tribal law. Accordingly, the requirements of Section 5 of Executive Order 13175 do not apply to this rulemaking.

This rulemaking does not impose or revise any reporting or record-keeping requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, 22 CFR part 42 is amended as follows:

Under Section 232, 223(a)(7), and 223(f) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715w 12 U.S.C. 1715n(a)(7), and 12 U.S.C. 1715n (f)(4), respectively), FHA insures mortgages to finance the purchase or refinance of nursing homes, intermediate care facilities, board and care homes, and assisted living facilities (collectively, residential healthcare facilities). On September 13, 2019, HUD published a proposed rule in the Federal Register , at 84 FR 48321, 1 to revise the current regulation governing the Section 232 program. The proposed rule sought to amend the bathroom requirements to meet the needs of memory care residents. Memory care residents are those patients in assisted living or board and care settings that have cognitive impairments, such as Alzheimer's disease and other dementias who require care in a secure setting.

As described in the proposed rule, memory care residents are a significant and growing proportion of the residential healthcare facilities population. 2 Facilities must accommodate residents' cognitive and physical impairments, and appropriate design enhances the health and safety of persons with Alzheimer's disease or other forms of dementia. For insured facilities, HUD's Section 232 regulation requires a specific number of bathrooms per residents and specifies the physical configuration of a board and care home or an assisted living facility, prohibiting configurations where the access path from a bedroom to a bathroom passes through a public area. HUD's proposed rule, therefore, proposed revising the regulation to add flexibility for financing existing residential healthcare facilities where complying with § 232.7 requirements for number or configuration of bathrooms is not practicable or would not adequately serve memory care residents. This change would enable existing residential healthcare facilities that currently serve memory care residents to obtain Section 232 refinancing.

Specifically, HUD proposed an exemption from the current requirement for one full bathroom for every four residents, and from the current prohibition on bathroom access that passes through a public corridor or area. Additional details about the proposed rule may be found at 84 FR 48321 (September 12, 2019).

This final rule adopts the proposed rule without change. The final rule provides an exemption from the current requirement of one full bathroom for every four residents, and from the current prohibition on bathroom access that passes through a public corridor or area, only for memory care facilities whose financing is being insured pursuant to Section 223(f) or 223(a)(7) of the National Housing Act, and only when four considerations are satisfied: (1) Memory care residents must reside in a separate, secured, and locked area of the board and care home or assisted living facility; (2) any bathroom access from a memory care resident's bedroom or sleeping area that passes through a public corridor or area must be in that separate, secured, and locked area of the board and care home or assisted living facility; (3) memory care residents of such areas require full assistance or supervision when bathing; and (4) wards serving memory care residents have no more than two beds per unit and a half-bath in each unit. This exemption would not apply to new construction or substantial rehabilitation insured under Section 232, and those projects must continue to follow the long-standing bathroom requirements for board and care home or assisted living units.

This final rule does not change the requirement in § 232.2 that all facilities must still comply with any applicable Federal, State or local standards and requirements, including requirements specific to memory care facilities. 3

The public comment period for the rule closed on November 12, 2019. HUD received two public comments in response to the proposed rule. These comments were submitted by a private citizen and an independent living specialist who works with the residential healthcare facility industry. Commenters were generally supportive of HUD's rule, but one commenter recommended the rule be expanded to address the Section 232 program as it relates to other Federal and State programs and requirements, particularly Medicaid. The commenter requested that HUD work with the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and States to implement CMS requirements for settings that are eligible for reimbursement for Medicaid home and community-based services. The commenter also requested that HUD clarify whether Medicaid enrollees will be able to use HUD programs to pay fair market rent or participate in rental assistance; and that HUD should address institutional bias related to Medicaid and housing systems. While HUD appreciates the comments, this final rule is limited to removing an impediment to providing needed mortgage insurance for existing memory care facilities.

Under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), a determination must be made by the Office of Management and Budget regarding whether a regulatory action is significant and therefore subject to review in accordance with the requirements of the order. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review) directs executive agencies to analyze regulations that are “outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned.” Executive Order 13563 also directs that, where relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives, and to the extent permitted by law, agencies are to identify and consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public. This rule allows additional flexibility for the financing of residential healthcare facilities.

Executive Order 13771, entitled “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” was issued on January 30, 2017. This final rule is expected to be an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action by providing additional flexibility for healthcare facilities, as discussed above.

A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) with respect to the environment was made prior to publication of the proposed rule, in accordance with HUD regulations at 24 CFR part 50, which implement Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). The FONSI remains applicable, and is available for public inspection between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays in the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, please schedule an appointment to review the FONSI by calling the Regulations Division at 202-708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and on the private sector. This final rule does not impose any Federal mandate on any state, local, or tribal government, or on the private sector, within the meaning of UMRA.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

HUD believes that this final rule imposes no additional requirements on small businesses. Currently, HUD has a total of 3,738 residential healthcare facilities in its portfolio and completes approximately 300 firm commitments each year for 223(f) and 223(a)(7) refinances. HUD is providing waivers on 3 percent of those applications and waiver requests continue to increase. As noted in the preamble of the final rule, applicants have advised that the requirement regarding the number and location of bathrooms presented barriers to properly serving memory care residents, who need specialized support. HUD believes this final rule will resolve the inadequacy of the current bathroom requirements, thus, easing the existing burden on those entities seeking to accommodate memory care residents and entities seeking to finance or refinance facilities. Additionally, both owners, small and large, and memory care residents will benefit from the opportunity to finance their facility in compliance with this new framework.

Accordingly, the undersigned certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits to the extent practicable and permitted by law, an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments and is not required by statute, or preempts state law, unless the relevant requirements of Section 6 of the Executive Order are met. This rule does not have federalism implications and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments or preempt state law within the meaning of the Executive Order.

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this final rule is not a major rule, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, Public Law 104-121, sec. 251, 110 Stat. 868, 873 (codified at 5 U.S.C. 804). This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.

The Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Number for the Mortgage Insurance Nursing Homes, Intermediate Care Facilities, Board and Care Homes and Assisted Living Facilities is 14.129.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, HUD amends 24 CFR part 232 as follows:

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

Under the Regional Haze Rule, states are required to submit progress reports that evaluate progress towards the reasonable progress goals for each mandatory Federal Class I area within the state and in each Class I area outside the state that may be affected by emissions from within the state. 1 In addition, the provisions also require states to submit, at the same time as the progress report, a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing regional haze plan. The first progress report must be in the form of a SIP revision and is due 5 years after submittal of the initial regional haze SIP.

On November 28, 2017, Wyoming submitted a Progress Report SIP revision which: (1) Detailed the progress made toward achieving progress for improving visibility at Class I areas, 2 and (2) declared a determination of adequacy of the State's regional haze plan to meet reasonable progress goals.

On April 17, 2020, the EPA published a proposed rulemaking titled “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Wyoming; Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report State Implementation Plan” proposing to approve Wyoming's Progress Report SIP revision. 3 The rationale for the EPA's proposed action is explained in the proposed rulemaking and will not be restated here. The EPA is finalizing its proposed approval of the Progress Report as meeting the applicable regional haze requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10).

We did not receive any comments on our proposed rulemaking during the public comment period.

The EPA is finalizing approval of Wyoming's November 28, 2017, Regional Haze Progress Report as meeting the applicable regional haze requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(10).

Under the CAA, 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 CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

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

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (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 August 25, 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)).

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

In the direct final rule, EPA stated that if adverse comments were submitted by June 17, 2020, the rule would be withdrawn and not take effect. EPA received adverse comments prior to the close of the comment period and, therefore, is withdrawing the direct final rule. EPA will address the comments in a subsequent final action based upon the proposed rule also published on May 18, 2020 (85 FR 29678). EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action.

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

The Columbia Falls PM 10 NAA is one of three NAAs in Flathead County. It is rectangularly shaped, and generally encompasses the downtown portion of Columbia Falls and the nearby surrounding areas. Columbia Falls was originally designated as a Group I area on August 7, 1987, meaning it was likely to violate the PM 10 NAAQS, and was subsequently classified as a Moderate NAA for the 1987 24-hour PM 10 NAAQS on November 6, 1991. See 56 FR 56694. States containing initial Moderate PM 10 NAAs were required to submit, by November 15, 1991, a Moderate NAA State Implementation Plan (SIP) that, among other requirements, implemented Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) by December 10, 1993, and demonstrated whether it was practicable to attain the PM 10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994. See generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); see also 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992). The State of Montana submitted an initial PM 10 SIP to the EPA on May 6, 1992, and subsequent submissions on August 26, 1994 and July 18, 1995. The State of Montana's SIP for the Columbia Falls Moderate NAA included, among other things: A comprehensive emissions inventory; RACM; a demonstration that attainment of the PM 10 NAAQS would be achieved in Columbia Falls by December 31, 1994; Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) requirements; and control measures that satisfy the contingency measures requirement of section 172(c)(9) of the CAA. The EPA fully approved the Columbia Falls NAA PM 10 attainment plan on March 19, 1996 (61 FR 11153).

The Libby PM 10 NAA is one of three NAAs in Flathead County. It is an irregularly shaped portion of Lincoln County, comprising of the city of Libby, and the surrounding communities. The area was originally designated as a Group I area on August 7, 1987, meaning it was likely to violate the PM 10 NAAQS, and was subsequently classified as a Moderate NAA for the 1987 24-hour PM 10 NAAQS on November 6, 1991. See 56 FR 56694.

The State of Montana submitted an initial PM 10 SIP to the EPA on November 25, 1991, with revisions and corrections submitted on May 24, 1993 and June 3, 1994. The State of Montana's SIP for the Libby Moderate PM 10 NAA included, among other things: A comprehensive emissions inventory; RACM; a demonstration that attainment of the PM 10 NAAQS would be achieved in Libby by December 31, 1994; RFP requirements; and control measures that satisfy the contingency measures requirement of section 172(c)(9) of the CAA. The EPA approved the Libby NAA PM 10 attainment plan, with the exception of the contingency plan, on August 30, 1994 (59 FR 44627). Revisions to the contingency plan were submitted by Montana on March 15, 1995 and subsequently approved on September 30, 1996 (61 FR 51074).

The Kalispell PM 10 NAA is one of three NAAs in Flathead County. It is irregularly shaped and generally encompasses the City of Kalispell and the nearby surrounding areas, including the unincorporated community of Evergreen. Kalispell was originally designated as a Group I area on August 7, 1987, meaning it was likely to violate the PM 10 NAAQS, and was subsequently classified as a Moderate NAA for the 1987 24-hour PM 10 NAAQS on November 6, 1991. See 56 FR 56694. The State of Montana submitted an initial PM 10 SIP to the EPA on November 25, 1991 and submitted three additional SIP revisions between 1991 and 1994. The State of Montana's SIP for the Kalispell Moderate NAA included, among other things: A comprehensive emissions inventory; RACM; a demonstration that attainment of the PM 10 NAAQS would be achieved in Kalispell by December 31, 1994; RFP requirements; and control measures that satisfy the contingency measures requirement of section 172(c)(9) of the CAA. The EPA fully approved the Kalispell NAA PM 10 attainment plan on March 19, 1996 (61 FR 11153).

The factual and legal background for this action is discussed in detail in our March 20, 2020 (85 FR 16029) proposed approval of the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby LMP as meeting the appropriate transportation conformity requirements, and concurrent redesignation of the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby NAAs to attainment of the NAAQS for PM 10 .

The public comment period on the EPA's proposed rule opened on March 20, 2020, the date of its publication in the Federal Register , (85 FR 16029), and closed on April 20, 2020. During this time, the EPA received no comments.

For the reasons explained in our proposed action, we are approving the LMP for the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby NAAs and the State's request to redesignate the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby NAAs from nonattainment to attainment for the 1987 24-hour PM 10 NAAQS. Additionally, the EPA has determined that the Kalispell and Libby NAAs have attained the NAAQS for PM 10 . 1 This determination is based upon monitored air quality data for the PM 10 NAAQS during the years 2016-2018. The EPA is approving the Columbia Falls, Kalispell and Libby LMPs as meeting the appropriate transportation conformity requirements found in 40 CFR part 93, subpart A and general conformity requirements found in 40 CFR part 93, subpart B.

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 August 25, 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)).

For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR parts 52 and 81 as follows:

On October 16, 2019, Maine submitted a complete program revision application seeking authorization of changes to its hazardous waste program in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. EPA now makes a final decision that Maine's hazardous waste program revisions that are being authorized are equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program, and therefore satisfy all of the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization. For a list of State rules being authorized with this Final Authorization, please see the proposed rule published in the Federal Register (84 FR 70135, December 20, 2019).

EPA received three (3) comments on its December 20, 2019, proposed authorization of Maine's hazardous waste program revisions. These comments are provided in the docket for today's final action. See Docket ID No. EPA-R01-RCRA-2019-0617 at www.regulations.gov. Two of the comments submitted are non-substantive and generally support EPA's proposed authorization. The third comment is substantive and it was submitted by Maine's Attorney General and the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP) Commissioner (collectively “Maine”).

In Maine's comment, Maine states three points of disagreement with EPA's Proposed Authorization and provides EPA with three requests. Maine disagrees (1) with EPA's characterization of the scope of Maine's current hazardous waste program submission; (2) with EPA's characterization of the scope of Maine's current hazardous waste program; and (3) with EPA's characterization of Maine's environmental regulatory authority and jurisdiction. Maine requests that (1) EPA extend its authorization of Maine's hazardous waste program to include all lands within the State, including Indian country; (2) EPA expressly acknowledge that Maine has environmental regulatory authority and jurisdiction statewide, including in Indian country; and (3) EPA expressly acknowledge that MDEP's current hazardous waste program submission and supporting materials requests program authorization for all lands within the State, including Indian country.

As EPA noted in its proposed authorization, Maine did not explicitly identify Indian country as lands for which it was seeking authorization in its October 16, 2019 hazardous waste program submission. It was in its subsequent comments on EPA's proposed authorization that Maine was explicit that its submission seeks authorization of its hazardous waste program for Indian country.

EPA's RCRA regulations require Maine to seek authority from EPA over activities on Indian lands with “an appropriate analysis of the State's authority” in the Attorney General's statement that Maine must provide to EPA in its hazardous waste program submission. 40 CFR 271.7(b).

Additionally, under basic principles of federal Indian law, states generally lack civil regulatory jurisdiction within Indian country as defined in 18 U.S.C. Section 1151. Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government, 522 U.S. 520,527 n.1 (1998). Thus, EPA cannot presume a state has authority to regulate in Indian country, including with regard to RCRA activities. Instead, a state must demonstrate its jurisdiction, and EPA must determine that the state has made the requisite demonstration and expressly determine that the state has authority, before a state can implement a program in Indian country. Where the State did not expressly seek authorization for Indian country in this authorization package, EPA properly did not include such lands in the proposed authorization of program revisions.

Based on the unique jurisdictional framework established in the Act to Implement the Maine Indian Claims Settlement (“Maine Implementing Act” or “MIA”), 30 M.R.S. §§ 6201 to 6214, and the federal Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act (“MICSA”), 1980 Public Law 96-420 (Oct. 10, 1980), and the two companion laws for the Aroostook Band of Micmacs, EPA has previously determined that the State of Maine has civil regulatory jurisdiction in Indian country in two contexts. In 2012, EPA determined that the State of Maine has jurisdiction to issue National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permits under the Clean Water Act in the territories of the Penobscot Indian Nation and Passamaquoddy Tribe. 77 FR 23481, 23482 (April 19, 2012); see also Maine v. Johnson, 498 F.3d 37 (1st Cir. 2007). In 2015, EPA determined that the State of Maine has authority to set water quality standards under the Clean Water Act for waters in Tribal lands. February 2, 2015, Letter from H. Curtis Spalding, EPA Regional Administrator, to Patricia W. Aho, Maine Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner, Re: Review and Decision on Water Quality Standards Revisions, available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-04/documents/me_let_020215.pdf.

In recognition of the significant time and resources needed to address Maine's assertion of authority to regulate hazardous waste activities on Tribal lands and EPA's finding that Maine did not seek authority over activities on Indian lands through a required and appropriate analysis of the State's authority in its Attorney General's statement, EPA is not making a determination on such authority as part of this decision. This approach allows EPA to move forward with the approval of Maine's program. EPA will act on such assertion following the necessary consultation with the federally recognized Indian tribes directly impacted by Maine's assertion, consistent with Executive Order 13175 (Nov. 6, 2000) and EPA's Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes (May 4, 2011). Because Maine's submission for hazardous waste program approval did not explicitly seek authority on Indian lands, additional processes may be necessary and appropriate, including a public comment period, before EPA takes any action on the State's assertion over Indian lands.

Therefore, EPA grants Maine final approval to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in Maine's hazardous waste program submission and as outlined in the proposed authorization, except as it relates to hazardous waste activities on Indian lands. EPA grants Maine “full” program approval in accordance with 40 CFR part 271.1(h).

In response to Maine's remaining comments, it is EPA's position that it has never explicitly approved the State to regulate RCRA activities in Tribal lands. Nor can EPA simply presume that Maine has authority to implement its RCRA program in Indian country. Rather, the Agency must first consult with the affected federally recognized Indian tribes and carefully consider the applicable legal authorities before making an explicit determination as to the State's authority. Finally, Maine's hazardous waste program submission is not the appropriate forum for EPA to address the State's asserted civil regulatory jurisdiction in Indian country with regard to other, non-RCRA environmental statutes.

Codification is the process of placing citations and references to the State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste program into the Code of Federal Regulations. EPA does this by adding those citations and references to the authorized State rules in 40 CFR part 272. EPA is not codifying the authorization of Maine's revisions as part of today's action.

This final authorization revises Maine's authorized hazardous waste management program pursuant to Section 3006 of RCRA and imposes no requirements other than those currently imposed by State law. For further information on how this authorization complies with applicable executive orders and statutory provisions, please see the proposed rule published in the Federal Register (84 FR 70135, December 20, 2019).

This is a summary of the Commission's Order, DA 20-460, adopted on May 1, 2020 and released on May 1, 2020, which is the subject of this rulemaking. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554, or online at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-20-460A1.pdf. To request this document in accessible formats for people with disabilities ( e.g., Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format, etc.) or to request reasonable accommodations ( e.g., accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

1. In crafting the Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence Act (TRACED Act), Congress acknowledged the need for enhanced penalties and additional time for the Commission to pursue entities that violate the restrictions on robocalls. In this Order, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) adopts final rules to implement section 3 of the TRACED Act (Section 3).

2. Accordingly, this Order amends section 1.80 of the Commission's rules. We move directly to an order here because implementation of Section 3 entails no exercise of our administrative discretion and, therefore, notice and comment procedures are unnecessary under the “good cause” exception to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

3. Section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Communications Act) is designed to protect consumers from unsolicited, unlawful calls by restricting autodialed or pre-recorded message calls and unsolicited facsimiles, and by minimizing transmission of misleading or inaccurate caller ID information. Section 227 of the Communications Act is known as the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

4. Section 227(b) restricts calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice. It prohibits calls to residential phones if the call uses an artificial or prerecorded voice message, unless the called party consents or the call is for an emergency purpose. Absent coverage by a relevant exception, such practices are known colloquially as illegal “robocalling.” The provision also prohibits unsolicited advertisements to facsimile machines unless the party receiving the facsimile has a preexisting business relationship with the sender, has consented to receive the facsimile, or has agreed to make available its facsimile number for public distribution.

5. Section 227(e), also known as the Truth in Caller ID Act, prohibits “caus[ing] any caller identification service” in connection with any voice service or text message service to “knowingly transmit misleading or inaccurate caller identification information with the intent to defraud, cause harm or wrongfully obtain anything of value[.]” Such practices are known colloquially as “spoofing.”

6. Section 3 of the TRACED Act amends section 227(b) of the TCPA in several respects. First, it removes the requirement that the Commission issue a citation, or warning, pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act before the Commission may propose a monetary forfeiture under section 227(b). Second, Section 3 prescribes an additional potential monetary penalty for violations of section 227(b) if the Commission determines that the person violated section 227(b) “with the intent to cause such violation.” Third, Section 3 sets a four-year statute of limitations period in which the Commission may take enforcement action against intentional violations of section 227(b); previously the statute of limitations was one year. Fourth, Section 3 sets a four-year statute of limitations period in which the Commission may take enforcement action against violations of section 227(e); previously the statute of limitations was two years.

7. We amend section 1.80 of our rules to implement Section 3. First, consistent with the amendments that Section 3 makes to section 227(b) of the Communications Act, we amend section 1.80 of our rules to provide that the Commission may in the first instance impose a penalty against any person or entity that violates Section 227(b), as amended. The TRACED Act removes the requirement that the Commission must first issue a citation to any person or entity that violates section 227(b) if that person or entity not hold any license, permit, certificate, or other authorization issued by the Commission, or is not an applicant for any license, permit, certificate, or other authorization issued by the Commission.

8. Second, we amend section 1.80 of our rules to augment existing penalties for those violators that commit intentional violations of section 227(b). Under the amended rule, the Commission has the authority to impose a penalty of up to $10,000 per intentional unlawful robocall in addition to the forfeiture penalty amount that may be proposed under section 503(b) of the Communications Act.

9. Third, we amend section 1.80 of our rules to extend the statute of limitations period to four years for intentional violations of section 227(b). By extending the enforcement period for intentional violations, Congress granted the Commission additional time to pursue violators that intentionally violate laws restricting the use of prerecorded or artificial voice messages and/or automatic telephone dialing systems.

10. Fourth, we amend section 1.80 of our rules to extend the statute of limitations period to four years for violations under section 227(e) of the Act.

11. Consistent with previous decisions, we amend our rules as set forth above without providing for prior public notice and comment. Our action here is largely ministerial because it simply effectuates regulations established by legislation and requires no exercise of administrative discretion. For this reason, we conclude that prior notice and comment would serve no useful purpose and are unnecessary. We therefore find that this action comes within the “good cause” exception to the notice and comment requirements of the APA.

12. The Enforcement Bureau is responsible for, among other things, rulemaking proceedings regarding general enforcement policies and procedures. In the TRACED Act, Congress mandated the Commission to prescribe implementing regulations for Section 3 within 270 days after enactment. Therefore, action on delegated authority is properly taken in this Order amending section 1.80 of our rules, which is part of the Commission's general enforcement policies and procedures. In addition, because a notice of proposed rulemaking is not required for these rule changes, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.

13. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis. The Order does not contain proposed information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, the Order does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

14. Congressional Review Act. The Commission has determined, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, concurs, that this rule is non-major under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will send a copy of this Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

15. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 227 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 227, sections 0.111(a)(22) and 0.311(a)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.111(a)(22), 0.311(a)(1), and section 3 of the Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence Act, Public Law 116-105, 133 Stat. 3274, that this Order is adopted.

16. It is further ordered that section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.80, is AMENDED as set forth in the Appendix below.

17. It is further ordered that this Order and the foregoing amendments to the Commission's rules shall be effective thirty (30) days after the date of publication in the Federal Register . It is further ordered that the Enforcement Bureau shall coordinate with the Commission's Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, TO SEND a copy of this Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 1 as follows:

This document announces that OMB approved the information collection requirement in §§ 52.15(f)(1)(ii) and (f)(8), 52.103(d), and 64.1200(l)(1) and (2) on June 2, 2020.

The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the compliance date of the rules. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554, regarding OMB Control Number 3060-1273. Please include the applicable OMB Control Number in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via email at PRA@fcc.gov.

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

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received final OMB approval on June 2, 2020, for the information collection requirements contained in §§ 52.15(f)(1)(ii) and (f)(8), 52.103(d), and 64.1200(l)(1) and (2). Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.

No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number.

The 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: 3060-1273.

OMB Approval Date: June 2, 2020.

OMB Expiration Date: June 30, 2023.

Title: Advanced Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls, CG Docket No. 17-59.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: New collection.

Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit entities; not-for-profit institutions; Federal Government; State, Local or Tribal Government.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 3,666 respondents; 15,375,326 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: .004 hours (15 seconds) to 32 hours.

Frequency of Response: Monthly, one time, and on-occasion reporting requirements; recordkeeping requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Mandatory. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in sections 227 and 251(e)(1) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Total Annual Burden: 290,233 hours.

Total Annual Cost: None.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: An assurance of confidentiality is not offered because this information collection does not require the collection of personally identifiable information from individuals.

Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: On December 12, 2018, the Commission adopted rules in FCC 18-177, 2018 Second Report and Order, published at 84 FR 11226, March 26, 2019, which contain new information collection requirements. Specifically, the Commission concluded that the obligation to provide permanent disconnect information will apply to all reporting carriers as defined in the Commission's numbering rules, which include wireless, wireline, and interconnected Voice over internet Protocol providers that obtain numbers from the North American Numbering Plan Administrator. As part of the Commission reporting requirements, reporting carriers must provide, among other things, the most recent date each North American Numbering Plan telephone number allocated or ported to the reporting carrier was permanently disconnected. The telephone number and date of permanent disconnection will allow voluntary users of the database to determine whether a number has been permanently disconnected prior to calling that number, thereby protecting against unwanted calls to consumers and potential Telephone Consumer Protection Act liability for callers. Reporting carriers and voluntary users of the reassigned numbers database may also need to provide contact information, including names, address, and telephone number, to enable the database administrator to contact the reporting carrier in case there are any issues with their submission.

The Commission has referred to the North American Numbering Council the development of a technical requirements document for the reassigned numbers database for review by the Commission. The technical requirements document will contain a single, unified set of functional and interface requirements for: Technical interoperability and operational standards; the user interface specifications and data format for service providers to report to the Administrator; the user interfaces and other means by which callers may submit queries, including providing callers the abilities for high-volume and batch processing or to submit individual queries; appropriate safeguards to protect the privacy and security of subscribers, protect the database from unauthorized access, and ensure the security and integrity of the data; and keeping records of service providers' reporting and accounting.

The Commission submitted revised information collection requirements for review and approval by OMB, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, on May 13, 2020, which were approved by OMB on June 15, 2020. The information collection requirements are contained in the Commission's Rate-of-Return Order, FCC 18-176 published at 84 FR 4711, February 19, 2019 and CAF Phase II Transitions Order, FCC 19-8 published at 84 FR 8619, March 11, 2019. The OMB Control Number is 3060-0986. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed in the following, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Nicole Ongele, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-A620, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-0986, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via email at PRA@fcc.gov.

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

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the Commission is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on June 15, 2020 for the information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 54.313(f)(1)(i) and (m) published at 84 FR 4711, February 19, 2019 and 84 FR 8619, March 11, 2019. Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.

No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-0986.

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: 3060-0986.

OMB Approval Date : June 15, 2020.

OMB Expiration Date: June 30, 2023.

Title: High-Cost Universal Service Support.

Form Number: FCC Form 481 and FCC Form 525.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit, Not-for-profit institutions and State, Local or Tribal Government.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 2,034 respondents; 12,729 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.1-15 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion, quarterly and annual reporting requirements, recordkeeping requirement and third party disclosure requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 155, 201-206, 214, 218-220, 251, 252, 254, 256, 303(r), 332, 403, 405, 410, and 1302.

Total Annual Burden: 54,519 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No Cost.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: The Commission notes that the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) must preserve the confidentiality of all data obtained from respondents and contributors to the universal service support program mechanism; must not use the data except for purposes of administering the universal service program; must not use the data except for purposes of administering the universal support program; and must not disclose data in company-specific form unless directed to do so by the Commission. Parties may submit confidential information in relation pursuant to a protective order. Also, respondents may request materials or information submitted to the Commission or to the Administrator believed confidential to be withheld from public inspection under 47 CFR 0.459 of the FCC's rules.

Needs and Uses: On November 18, 2011, the Commission adopted an order reforming its high-cost universal service support mechanisms. Connect America Fund; A National Broadband Plan for Our Future; Establish Just and Reasonable Rates for Local Exchange Carriers; High-Cost Universal Service Support; Developing a Unified Intercarrier Compensation Regime; Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Lifeline and Link-Up; Universal Service Reform—Mobility Fund, WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 07-135, 05-337, 03-109; GN Docket No. 09-51; CC Docket Nos. 01-92, 96-45; WT Docket No. 10-208, Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 17663 (76 FR 73830 (Nov. 29, 2011) and 76 FR 78384 (Dec. 16, 2011)) (2011) ( USF/ICC Transformation Order ), and the Commission and Wireline Competition Bureau have since adopted a number of orders that implement the USF/ICC Transformation Order; see also Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., Third Order on Reconsideration, 27 FCC Rcd 5622 (77 FR 30904 (May 24, 2012)) (2012); Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., Order, 27 FCC Rcd 605 (77 FR 14297 (March 9, 2012)) (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2012); Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., Fifth Order on Reconsideration, 27 FCC Rcd 14549 (78 FR 3837 (Jan. 17, 2013)) (2012); Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., Order, 28 FCC Rcd 2051 (78 FR 22198 (April 15, 2013)) (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2013); Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., Order, 28 FCC Rcd 7227 (78 FR 70881 (Nov. 27, 2013)) (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2013); Connect America Fund, WC Docket No. 10-90, Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 7766 (78 FR 38227 (June 26, 2013)) (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2013); Connect America Fund, WC Docket No. 10-90, Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 7211 (78 FR 32991 (June 3, 2013)) (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2013); Connect America Fund, WC Docket No. 10-90, Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 10488 (78 FR 48622 (Aug. 9, 2013)) (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2013); Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., Report and Order, Order and Order on Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 31 FCC Rcd 3087 (81 FR 24282 (April 25, 2016) and 81 FR 21511 (April 12, 2106)) (2016); Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 16-271; WT Docket No. 10-208, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 31 FCC Rcd 10139 (81 FR 69696 (Oct. 7, 2016) and 81 FR 69772 (Oct. 7, 2016)) (2016); Connect America Fund; ETC Annual Reports and Certifications, WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 14-58, Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd 5944 (82 FR 39966 (Aug. 23, 2017)) (2017). The Commission has received OMB approval for most of the information collections required by these orders.

More recently, through several orders, the Commission has changed or modified reporting obligations for high-cost support. In the CAF Phase II Auction Order, the Commission adopted rules requiring Connect America Phase II auction support recipients to certify the networks they operated in the prior year meet the Commission's performance requirements, to identify the total amount of support, if any, that was used for capital expenditures in the previous calendar year, and to certify they have available funds for all project costs that will exceed the amount of support to be received from the authorization stemming from the Phase II auction for the next calendar year. Connect America Fund, et al., WC Docket No. 10-90, et al., Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 31 FCC Rcd 5949 (2016) (81 FR 44414 (July 7, 2016) and 81 FR 40235 (June 21, 2016)) ( CAF Phase II Auction Order ).

In the New York Waiver Order, the Commission extended to New York carriers who receive Connect America Phase II support in conjunction with the State's New NY Broadband Program the same annual reporting requirements adopted for Phase II auction recipients, as well as the requirement for the State public service commission to certify annually that those carriers' high cost support “was used in the preceding calendar year and will be used in the coming calendar year only for the provision, maintenance, and upgrading of facilities and services for which the support is intended.” Connect America Fund; ETC Annual Reports and Certifications, WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 14-58, Order, 32 FCC Rcd 968 (2017) ( New York Waiver Order ).

In the December 2018 Rate-of-Return Order, the Commission modified the reasonable request certification rule applicable to rate-of-return ETCs to (1) require Connect America Fund-Alternative Connect America Cost Model (CAF-ACAM) support recipients to certify that they are meeting the relevant reasonable request standard and (2) require rate-of-return ETCs receiving legacy high-cost support to certify that they are meeting a 25 Mbps/3 Mbps reasonable request standard. Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., Report and Order, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Order on Reconsideration, FCC 18-176, at 19-20, para. 17 (84 FR 4711 (Feb. 19, 2019) and 84 FR 2132 (Feb. 6, 2019)) (Dec. 13, 2018) ( December 2018 Rate-of-Return Order ). See also 47 CFR 54.313(f)(1)(i).

In the CAF Phase II Transitions Order, the Commission adopted rules requiring price cap or fixed competitive eligible communications carriers receiving phase-down support to certify that the phase-down support they received in the previous year was used to provide voice service to high-cost and extremely high-cost census blocks where they continue to have federal obligation to provide such services. Connect America Fund, WC Docket 10-90, Report and Order, FCC 19-8, at 11, para. 25 (84 FR 8619 (March 11, 2019)) (Feb. 15, 2019).

The Commission therefore revises this information collection, as well as Form 481 and its accompanying instructions, to reflect these new and revised requirements. We also increased the burdens associated with existing reporting requirements to account for additional carriers that will be subject to those requirements.

This final rule amends the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) to make needed technical amendments. As part of GSA's regulatory reform efforts, GSA has been performing a comprehensive review of the requirements in the GSAR. GSA identified several instances where the website address ( i.e., URL) needed to be updated. The update to these URLs in some cases require additional corresponding editorial changes as well.

URLs are being updated, along with corresponding editorial changes, if applicable, within the following GSAR sections: 504.604 Responsibilities; 504.1103 Procedures; 522.804-2 Construction; 522.805 Procedures; 570.106 Advertising, Publicizing, and Notifications to Congress; 570.106-1 Synopsis of Lease Awards; and 570.306 Evaluating Offers. URLs are also being updated, along with corresponding editorial changes, if applicable, within the following GSAR clauses: 552.204-9 Personal Identity Verification Requirements, 552.238-80 Industrial Funding Fee and Sales Reporting.

Therefore, GSA amends 48 CFR parts 504, 522, 552, and 570 as set forth below: