On April 6, 2020, OPM published notice 85 FR 19174 in the Federal Register to revise the normal cost percentages under the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS) Act of 1986, Public Law 99-335, 100 Stat. 514, as amended, based on economic assumptions and demographic factors adopted by the Board of Actuaries of the Civil Service Retirement System. As a result of new legislation enacted on December 20, 2019, under sec. 211 of title II, division E of Public Law 116-94, the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, OPM was required to provide separate normal cost percentages for certain members of the Capitol Police as distinct from other Congressional Employees. Prior to the enactment of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, members of the Capitol Police were combined with Congressional Employees for the purpose of determining the normal cost percentages for those employee populations. This rule is necessary to ensure that the rules for computation of normal cost percentages are consistent with the categories of employees as provided under 5 U.S.C. 8423(a)(1)(B)(i), as amended by sec. 211 of title II, division E of Public Law 116-94, the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020.

The Middle Class Tax Relief and Jobs Creation Act of 2012, sec. 5001 of Public Law 112-96, 126 Stat. 157, and subsequently, sect. 401 of Public Law 113-67, 113 Stat. 1165, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, increased the retirement contributions for certain FERS employees (Revised Annuity Employees (FERS-RAE) and Further Revised Annuity Employees (FERS-FRAE)) and established separate FERS deduction rates for Congressional employees and members of the Capitol Police. These Acts reduced the retirement annuity accrual rates of new legislative (Congressional) branch employees (other than Capitol Police) equal to that of most regular federal employees, while the retirement accrual rates for new Capitol Police remained at an enhanced level. Despite the difference in annuity benefits, these Acts did not establish separate employee categories for the computation of normal cost percentages for Capitol Police versus other legislative branch employees. With the passage of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, members of the Capitol Police covered under 5 U.S.C. 8412(d) and 5 U.S.C. 8425(c), who receive enhanced retirement accrual rates similar to that of law enforcement officers under 5 U.S.C. 8415(e), have been removed from the Congressional employee normal cost category and now have their own normal cost category.

Section 841.403 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, regulates the categories of employees for computation of normal cost percentages that the government is required to pay for employees under 5 U.S.C. 8423. OPM's final rule amends its regulation under 5 CFR 841.403 to eliminate the category of “Congressional employees, including members of the Capitol Police,” and to establish separate normal cost percentages for certain members of the Capitol Police and for Congressional employees in compliance with sec. 211 of title II, division E of Public Law 116-94, the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020. In accordance with the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, 5 CFR 841.403 must list members of the Capitol Police covered under 5 U.S.C. 8412(d) and 5 U.S.C. 8425(c) as a separate category. All other Capitol Police, who are not members covered under 5 U.S.C. 8412(d) and 5 U.S.C. 8425(c), will fall under the new category of “other Congressional employees.” OPM received no written comments on the proposed rule published July 2, 2020 (85 FR 39851).

OPM has examined the impact of this rule as required by Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563, which directs 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). A regulatory impact analysis must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects of $100 million or more in any one year. This rule was not designated as a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866.

This rule is not an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because this rule is related to agency organization, management, or personnel.

The Office of Personnel Management certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number.

This rule involves an OMB approved collection of information subject to the PRA Application for Death Benefits (FERS)/Documentation and Elections in Support of Application for Death Benefits when Deceased was an Employee at the Time of Death (FERS), 3206-0172. The public reporting burden for this collection is estimated to average 60 minutes per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The total burden hour estimate for this form is 16,751 hours. The systems of record notice for this collection is: OPM SORN CENTRAL-1-Civil Service Retirement and Insurance Records.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Office of Personnel Management amends 5 CFR part 841 as follows:

On April 6, 2020, OPM published at 85 FR 19174, a notice in the Federal Register to revise the normal cost percentages under the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS) Act of 1986, Public Law 99-335, 100 Stat. 514, as amended, based on economic assumptions and demographic factors adopted by the Board of Actuaries of the Civil Service Retirement System. By statute under 5 U.S.C. 8461(i), the revisions to the actuarial assumptions require corresponding changes in factors used to produce actuarially equivalent benefits when required by the FERS Act. As a result, on July 2, 2020, at 85 FR 39852, OPM published a proposed rule in the Federal Register to revise the table of reduction factors in Appendix A to subpart C of part 843, Code of Federal Regulations, for early commencing dates of survivor annuities for spouses of separated employees who die before the date on which they would be eligible for unreduced deferred annuities, and to revise the annuity factor for spouses of deceased employees who die in service when those spouses elect to receive the basic employee death benefit in 36 installments under 5 CFR 843.309. OPM received no written comments on the proposed rule.

OPM has examined the impact of this rule as required by Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563, which directs 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). A regulatory impact analysis must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects of $100 million or more in any one year. This rule was not designated as a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866.

This rule is not an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because this rule is related to agency organization, management, or personnel.

The Office of Personnel Management certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number.

This rule involves an OMB approved collection of information subject to the PRA Application for Death Benefits (FERS)/Documentation and Elections in Support of Application for Death Benefits when Deceased was an Employee at the Time of Death (FERS), 3206-0172. The public reporting burden for this collection is estimated to average 60 minutes per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The total burden hour estimate for this form is 16,751 hours. The systems of record notice for this collection is: OPM SORN CENTRAL-1-Civil Service Retirement and Insurance Records.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Office of Personnel Management amends 5 CFR part 843 as follows:

In response to the COVID-19 outbreak, USDA implemented CFAP through a final rule published in the Federal Register on May 21, 2020 (85 FR 30825-30835), with corrections published in the Federal Register on June 12, 2020 (85 FR 35799-35800), July 10, 2020 (85 FR 41328-41330), August 14, 2020 (85 FR 49593-49594), and documents published in the Federal Register on May 22, 2020 (85 FR 31062-31065), June 12, 2020 (85 FR 35812), July 10, 2020 (85 FR 41321-41323), and August 14, 2020 (85 FR 49589-49593). The application period for the first round of CFAP payments (referred to in this rule and hereinafter as CFAP 1) was May 26, 2020, through September 11, 2020.

In this final rule, USDA is implementing a second round of payments under CFAP (CFAP 2) for producers of agricultural commodities who face continuing market disruptions, low farm-level prices, and significant marketing costs. These additional significant marketing costs are associated with declines in demand, surplus production, and disruptions to shipping patterns and the orderly marketing of commodities.

CFAP 2 will provide eligible producers with financial assistance that gives them the ability to absorb increased marketing costs associated with the COVID-19 outbreak. In accordance with 15 U.S.C. 714b, the Secretary is using funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to assist producers with the purchase of materials and facilities required in connection with the production and marketing of agricultural commodities, with an estimated $13.21 billion being made available. These funds will be used as authorized by sections 5(b), (d), and (e) of the CCC Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714c(b), (d), and (e)). These authorities will be used to partially compensate producers for on-going market disruptions and assist with the transition to a more orderly marketing system by enabling them to:

• Purchase materials and facilities required in connection with the production and marketing of agricultural commodities;

• Remove or dispose of surplus agricultural commodities; and

• Develop new and additional markets, marketing facilities, and uses for the commodities.

Funds available under 15 U.S.C. 714c(b), (d), and (e) cannot be used to provide assistance for tobacco; however, tobacco will be eligible for CFAP 2 with payments funded by remaining funds authorized by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act; Pub. L. 116-136).

CFAP 2 payments will be made for three categories of commodities:

1. Price trigger commodities (major commodities that meet a minimum 5-percent price decline over a specified time period);

2. Flat-rate crops; and

3. Sales commodities.

Eligible price trigger commodities include barley, corn, sorghum, soybeans, sunflowers, upland cotton, wheat (all classes), broilers, eggs, beef cattle, dairy, hogs and pigs, and lambs and sheep. Price trigger commodities are commodities that had a 5 percent or greater price decline due to COVID-19 in a comparison of the average price for the week of January 13-17, 2020, and the average price for the week of July 27-31, 2020. For price trigger crops, payments will be based on eligible acres of the crop, which are the producer's share of 2020 determined acres if established by FSA, or reported acres on FSA-578 if determined acres have not been established by FSA, excluding prevented planting and experimental acres. Payments for price trigger crops will be the greater of: (1) The eligible acres multiplied by a payment rate of $15 per acre; or (2) the eligible acres multiplied by a nationwide crop marketing percentage, multiplied by a crop-specific payment rate, and then by the producer's weighted 2020 Actual Production History (APH) approved yield, or if the APH is not available, 85 percent of the 2019 Agriculture Risk Coverage-County Option (ARC-CO) benchmark yield for that crop. For broilers and eggs, payments will be based on 75 percent of the producer's 2019 production. For dairy, payments will be based on April 1 to August 31, 2020, actual milk production and September 1, 2020, to December 31, 2020, estimated milk production (based on the producer's daily average production from April 1 to August 31, 2020, multiplied by the number of days the dairy operation commercially markets milk from September 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020). For price-triggered livestock, payments will be based on a fixed number of head, which is defined as the lower of the maximum owned inventory of eligible livestock, excluding breeding stock, on a date selected by the eligible producer from April 16, 2020, through August 31, 2020, or a specific number of head (4,546 head of cattle or 10,870 head of hogs). In the payment calculation, the maximum number of head of cattle and hogs, respectively, will be multiplied by the number of payment limitations for the producer.

Flat-rate crops are crops that either do not meet the 5-percent price decline trigger noted above or do not have data available to calculate a price change, but will have CFAP 2 payments calculated based on eligible acres of the crop planted in 2020, similar to price trigger crops. Eligible flat-rate crops include alfalfa, Extra Long Staple (ELS) cotton, oats, peanuts, and rice, as well as some crops with relatively small acreage—such as amaranth grain, buckwheat, canola, crambe (colwort), einkorn, emmer, flax, guar, hemp, indigo, industrial rice, kenaf, Khorasan, millet, mustard, oats, peanuts, quinoa, rice, sweet rice, wild rye, safflower, sesame, speltz, sugar beets, sugarcane, teff, triticale, and rapeseed. For flat-rate crops, payments will be computed by multiplying: (1) The producer's share of reported or determined 2020 planted acres of the crop, excluding prevented planted and experimental acres, by (2) $15 per acre.

The sales commodities category includes:

• Aquaculture grown in a controlled environment;

• Nursery crops and floriculture;

• Other livestock (excluding breeding stock) not included under the price trigger category that were grown for food, fiber, fur, or feathers;

• Other crops not included in the price trigger and flat-rate categories, including tobacco;

• Goat milk;

• Mink (including pelts);

• Mohair; and

• Wool.

Payment calculations for the sales commodities will use a sales-based approach based on five payment gradations associated with the producer's 2019 sales of the commodity.

Payments cannot be calculated using the methods described above for producers of broilers, eggs, and sales commodities who began farming in 2020 and had no 2019 production or sales. Payments for such producers will be based on the producer's actual 2020 production or sales as of the date the producer submits an application for payment.

Only commercially produced commodities are eligible.

Producer must be in the business of farming at the time of application.

Hay, except alfalfa, and crops intended for grazing are ineligible for CFAP 2 and will not receive a CFAP 2 payment. Crops with intended uses of green manure and left standing are also ineligible.

Contract growers are ineligible for CFAP 2 and will not receive a CFAP 2 payment.

A person or legal entity, other than a joint venture or general partnership, is ineligible for payments if the person's or legal entity's average adjusted gross income (AGI), using the average of the adjusted gross incomes for the 2016, 2017 and 2018 tax years, is more than $900,000, unless at least 75 percent of that person's or legal entity's average AGI is derived from farming, ranching, or forestry-related activities. If at least 75 percent of the person's or legal entity's AGI is derived from farming, ranching, or forestry-related activities and the participant provides the required certification and documentation, the person or legal entity is eligible to receive CFAP payments up to the applicable payment limitation.

With respect to joint ventures and general partnerships, this AGI provision will be applied to each member of the joint venture and general partnership.

CFAP 2 payments are subject to a per person and legal entity payment limitation of $250,000. This payment limitation is separate from the CFAP 1 payment limitation, and it applies to the total amount of CFAP 2 payments made with respect to all eligible commodities under all three categories.

This rule also amends the special payment limitations in § 9.7(e) for both CFAP 1 and CFAP 2. Previously, the special payment limitation provisions applied to corporations, limited liability companies, and limited partnerships. Those corporate entities may receive up to $750,000 in CFAP 1 payments based on the number of shareholders or members (not to exceed three shareholders or members) who are contributing at least 400 hours of active personal labor or active personal management or combination thereof with respect to the operation of the corporate entity.

This change amends the CFAP general provisions to extend those special payment limitation provisions to trusts and estates, allowing them to be eligible for the optional payment limitation increase based on the labor or management contributions of the beneficiaries or heirs of such trusts and estates. Extending these provisions to trusts and estates is necessary to recognize that, similar to members, partners, and stockholders of corporate entities, beneficiaries and heirs of trusts and estates may contribute at least 400 hours of active personal labor or active personal management or a combination thereof. Furthermore, trusts and estates are also affected by the price declines caused by COVID-19.

This rule also changes the method by which payments under the special payment limitation provisions are attributed to individuals and legal entities for both CFAP 1 and CFAP 2. The increased CFAP payment limitation for corporations, limited liability companies, limited partnerships, trusts, and estates based on contributions of at least 400 hours of active personal labor or active personal management or combination thereof is unlike the payment limitation under any other program administered by FSA. FSA's method of attributing CFAP payments based on ownership share of the legal entity in accordance with 7 CFR 1400.105, which applies to other FSA-administered programs subject to payment limitation, creates inequity when the pay limit for the legal entity is increased under the special provisions but not increased for each member of the entity.

Under 7 CFR 1400.105 for attributing payments for most commodity programs, the maximum amount that a legal entity could receive is limited by the maximum amount each eligible member may receive (directly or indirectly) based on ownership interest in the legal entity, which is $250,000. For example, under current attribution rules, a corporation that qualifies for the increased limitation of $500,000 may only receive $450,000 when stockholders have unequal ownership shares in the legal entity. In this example, Stockholder A holds 60 percent ownership share and Stockholder B holds 40 percent ownership share. The payment to the legal entity is determined by multiplying each stockholder's ownership interest by the payment limitation of the corporation. (For Stockholder A, 60 percent × $500,000 = $300,000 (not to exceed $250,000); for Stockholder B, 40 percent × $500,000 = $200,000). The maximum payment to the legal entity in this case is $450,000 ($250,000 + $200,000). With the change to attribution in this rule applicable to CFAP 1 and CFAP 2, the payment to the legal entity qualifying for the increased payment limitation will not be reduced for ownership share, except for ineligibility or prior payments to a member, stockholder, partner, heir or beneficiary. The correction in how FSA attributes and limits CFAP payments under the special provisions to the members of the legal entity provides the ability for the legal entity to receive the maximum amount, not to exceed $500,000 or $750,000 as applicable, under the increased payment limitation, regardless of the ownership interests of the members, partners, and stockholders, beneficiaries, or heirs contributing at least 400 hours of active personal labor or active personal management. However, a member, stockholder, partner, beneficiary, or heir cannot receive, directly or indirectly, more than $250,000 under each round of payments (CFAP 1 and CFAP 2), regardless of whether payments attributed to them are subject to the regular payment limitation or the special increased limitations.

This rule removes “2019” as the applicable commodity year in § 9.7(e)(2)(ii) and (iii) because CFAP eligibility may be based on 2019 or 2020 production of the commodity, as specified in the applicable payment calculations.

The general eligibility requirements that applied to CFAP 1 also apply to CFAP 2, including requiring compliance with 7 CFR part 12, “Highly Erodible Land and Wetland Conservation” and 7 CFR part 1400 subpart E, “Foreign Persons.” Appeal regulations in 7 CFR parts 11 and 780 also apply to CFAP 2.

As under CFAP 1, there is no requirement to have crop insurance coverage or coverage under the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) for an eligible CFAP commodity to be eligible for CFAP 2.

FSA will be responsible for implementing CFAP 2. FSA will accept CFAP 2 applications beginning September 21, 2020, and ending December 11, 2020. To apply for CFAP 2 payments, producers must submit a completed CFAP 2 application either in person, by mail, email, or facsimile to an FSA county office. A producer who applies must submit additional documentation for eligibility, such as certifications of compliance with adjusted gross income provisions and conservation compliance activities; those additional documents and forms must be submitted no later than 60 days from the date a producer signs the application. Payments will not be made until all necessary eligibility documentation is received, and will be reduced or not issued to the individuals or members of the entity when the documentation is not submitted timely. Producers who are applying for payment for price trigger or flat-rate crops must file a report of all acreage for the crop on FSA-578, Report of Acreage.

If supporting documentation is requested to verify the information specified on the application, the producer must provide records that substantiate the reported information. Examples of supporting documentation include evidence provided by the producer that is used to substantiate the acres, sales, inventory, or production reported, including copies of receipts, ledgers of income, income statements of deposit slips, veterinarian records, register tapes, invoices for custom harvesting, and records to verify production costs, contemporaneous measurements, truck scale tickets, or contemporaneous diaries that are determined acceptable by USDA.

In the event that any application for a CFAP 2 payment resulted from erroneous information reported by the producer, the payment will be recalculated, and the producer must refund any excess payment to USDA. If the error was the producer's error, the refund must include interest  1 to be calculated from the date of the disbursement to the producer.

If USDA determines that the producer's application misrepresented either the total amount or producer's share of the acres, production, head of livestock, or sales, or if the CFAP 2 payment would exceed the payment as calculated based on the correct share of the acres, production, head of livestock, or sales, the application will be disapproved and the participant must refund to USDA all CFAP 2 payments made to the producer with interest from the date of disbursement.

Any required refunds must be resolved in accordance with debt settlement regulations in 7 CFR part 3.

In addition to the changes necessary to implement CFAP 2, USDA is moving definitions and payment calculation provisions that are specific to CFAP 1 to a new subpart B. This change is for organizational purposes only; this rule does not change those definitions and provisions.

This rule also adds a definition of “controlled environment” in § 9.2. This definition is consistent with how the term has been interpreted for the administration of CFAP 1 and for other FSA disaster programs (see FSA handbook for CFAP 1 and the NAP handbook, found under Disaster Assistance on the following web page: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/laws-and-regulations/handbooks/index ); it is added only to provide clarity.

The Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)) 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 benefits. This rule governs CFAP for payments to certain commodity producers and therefore falls within the benefits exemption.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated this rule as major under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Section 808 of the CRA allows an agency to make a major regulation effective immediately if the agency finds there is good cause to do so. The beneficiaries of this rule have been significantly impacted by the COVID-19 outbreak, which has resulted in significant declines in demand and market disruptions. USDA finds that notice and public procedure are contrary to the public interest. Therefore, even though this rule is a major rule for purposes of the Congressional Review Act, USDA is not required to delay the effective date for 60 days from the date of publication to allow for Congressional review. Accordingly, this rule is effective upon publication in the Federal Register .

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 emphasizes 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. Further, 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 economically significant under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and therefore, OMB has reviewed this rule. The costs and benefits of this rule are summarized below. The full cost benefit analysis is available on regulations.gov.

CFAP 2 will provide producers with financial assistance that gives them the ability to absorb increased marketing costs associated with the COVID-19 outbreak. Producers will receive payments under the CCC Charter Act (section 5(b), (d), and (e)) with an estimated $13.21 billion being made available (after payment limitations).

Producers will be compensated for on-going market disruptions and to transition to a more orderly marketing system. Payments will assist producers with the purchase of materials and facilities required in connection with the production and marketing of agricultural commodities, aid in the removal or disposition of surplus agricultural commodities, and aid in the development of new and additional markets, marketing facilities, and uses for such commodities.

For the price trigger commodities, the approach to calculating CFAP 2 payments is very similar to that used for CFAP 1 (which covered Quarter 1 of 2020), although the focus now is on Quarter 2 through Quarter 4 of calendar 2020. Payments are based on the price decline calculated between mid-January and late-July and use an 80 percent coverage factor. Where available, mid-January and late July futures prices (for either the November or December contract) were used to estimate the market's price expectations toward the end of calendar 2020. Future contracts are not traded for all crops with a price trigger nor are they available for eggs, broilers, and lamb. For these commodities, actual prices received in mid-January and late July are used as a proxy. Depending on the yield for a given producer's crop in this category, the payment may calculate to less than $15 per acre. In such cases, the payment is raised to $15 per acre, which is the payment for the flat-rate category discussed below.

Producers of the flat-rate commodities receive a $15 per-acre payment based on their eligible 2020 acreage.

For the sales-based commodities, payment calculations will use a sales-based approach, where producers are paid based on five payment gradations associated with their 2019 sales. In addition, tobacco is a sales-based commodity under CFAP 2 and a CARES Act payment will be calculated using remaining CARES Act funds, not to exceed $100 million.

Estimated net payments to producers of $13.21 billion represent benefits to producers, which is the government cost of CFAP 2. Outlays are estimated at expected maximum levels.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA, Pub. L. 104-121), generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule whenever an agency is required by the Administrative Procedure Act 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 USDA is not required by the Administrative Procedure Act or any other law to publish a proposed rule for this rulemaking initiative.

The environmental impacts of this final rule have been considered in a manner consistent with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and because USDA will be making the payments to producers the USDA regulations for compliance with NEPA (7 CFR part 1b).

Although OMB has designated this rule as “economically significant” under Executive Order 12866, “. . . economic or social effects are not intended by themselves to require preparation of an environmental impact statement” when not interrelated to natural or physical environmental effects (see 40 CFR 1508.14). CFAP 2 was designed to avoid skewing planting decisions. Producers continue to make their planting and production decisions with the market signals in mind, rather than any expectation of what a new USDA program might look like. The discretionary aspects of CFAP 2 (for example, determining AGI and payment limitations) were designed to be consistent with established USDA and CCC programs and are not expected to have any impact on the human environment, as CFAP 2 payments will only be made after the commodity has been produced. Accordingly, the following Categorical Exclusion in 7 CFR part 1b applies: 1b.3(2), which applies to activities that deal solely with the funding of programs, such as program budget proposals, disbursements, and the transfer or reprogramming of funds. As such, the implementation of and participation in CFAP 2 do not constitute major Federal actions that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment, individually or cumulatively. Therefore, an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement for this regulatory action, will not be prepared; this rule serves as documentation of the programmatic environmental compliance decision for this federal action.

Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” requires consultation with State and local officials that would be directly affect 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 to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V (48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983), the programs and activities within this rule are excluded from the scope of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials.

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 action may be brought regarding the provisions of this rule, the administrative appeal provisions of 7 CFR parts 11 and 780 must 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 for compliance with 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 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.

USDA has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian Tribes and determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have Tribal implications that required Tribal consultation under Executive Order 13175. If a Tribe requests consultation, the USDA Office of Tribal Relations (OTR) will ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions, and modifications are not expressly mandated by Congress.

Outside of Tribal consultation, USDA is working with Tribes to provide information about CFAP 2 and other issues.

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 on State local, and Tribal governments or the private sector. Agencies generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit 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 found in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance to which this rule applies is Coronavirus Food Assistance Program 2 and 10.132.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FSA submitted the CFAP 2 information collection request to OMB for emergency approval. OMB approved the 6-month emergency information collection.

USDA 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, this final rule amends 7 CFR part 9 as follows:

The Agency administers a multitude of Federal programs for the benefit of rural America, ranging from housing and community facilities to infrastructure and business development. Its mission is to increase economic opportunity and improve the quality of life in rural communities by providing the leadership, infrastructure, capital, and technical support that enables rural communities to prosper. To achieve its mission, the Agency provides financial support (including direct loans, grants, and loan guarantees) and technical assistance.

Section 379H Strategic and Economic Community Development of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2008v) supports rural communities by promoting regional economic and community development. Reservation of targeted funds are available for covered Rural Development programs to encourage regional economic and community development. Section 6401 of the 2018 Farm Bill amended Section 379H, Strategic Economic and Community Development of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to state that projects must be part of both a multi-jurisdicational and multi-sectoral Strategic Community Invesment Plan in order to receive consideration for the set-aside. Prior to the adoption of Section 6401 of the 2018 Farm Bill, projects only had to be part of a multi-jurisdictional plan in order to receive consideration for funding. Section 6401 of the Farm Bill provides RD an important mechanism to further our mission by leveraging projects that spur regional economic and community development while also focusing on multiple sectors. In addition, this will reward communities that demonstrate best practices for furthering sustainable regional and community prosperity by bringing together key local and regional stakeholders and using long-term planning that integrates targeted investments across communities and regions.

A summary of changes to 7 CFR part 1980, subpart K, which implement Section 6401 of the 2018 Farm Bill follows:

In accordance with Section 6401 of the 2018 Farm Bill, this section has been updated to include that qualified plans must be both multi-jurisdictional and multi-sectoral, and the name of plans has been updated from “Strategic Economic Development and Community Development Plans” to “Strategic Community Investment Plans.”

Previously, SECD was limited to certain Rural Development programs by statute. In accordance with Section 6401 of the 2018 Farm Bill, this regulation will include expansion of SECD to all programs covered by Title XIV of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (CONACT) or programs administered by the Secretary acting through the Rural Development mission area. This section is amended to update the list of eligible programs covered by Section 6401 of the 2018 Farm Bill and for which funds may be set-aside.

Section 6401 of the 2018 Farm Bill increased the reservation amount for funding from up to 10 percent to up to 15 percent. This section has been revised to reflect the increase in the reservation amount and to clarify the amendments. This section has also been updated to revise the date by which unused set-aside funds will be returned to the regular program account for use by other projects.

In accordance with Section 379H of the CONACT (7 U.S.C. 2008v), all SECD reserved funds shall be reserved for the 1-year period beginning on the date on which funds were first made available, as determined by the Secretary. The Agency has determined that for non-annual and annually appropriated programs, SECD reserved funding will be available for obligation until deadlines established by covered programs. Covered programs' deadlines will be outlined in a SECD annual Federal Register publication. Reserved funds not obligated by September 30 will be reconciled according to applicable law. The Agency has settled on this process because program and procedural differences can present a hardship when one SECD obligation deadline is established. Covered programs have varying deadline and pooling dates. Further, covered programs have differing engineering and environmental review processes. Allowing programs to use their deadlines and/or pooling dates as the SECD funds obligation deadline offers flexibility in project review and award and provides adequate time for SECD reserved funds to be allocated to appropriate covered program accounts. In addition, programs are not mandated to hold SECD reserved funds until September 30, but can convert SECD reserved funds to regular program for funding non-SECD projects.

The definitions section has been revised to include additional definitions and revise others to conform to the statutory provisions of the Section 6401 of the 2018 Farm Bill, as follows:

The term Adopted was revised to clarify the appropriate entities that may approve a Strategic Community Investment Plans in accordance with Section 6401 of the 2018 Farm Bill.

The term Carried Out in a Rural Area was updated to remove the term “solely” from the title of the definition and to clarify the meaning of the definition in accordance with Section 6401 of the 2018 Farm Bill.

The terms Jurisdiction, Multi-Jurisdictional, Philanthropic, and Project were revised to provide clarity in accordance with Section 6401 of the 2018 Farm Bill.

The term Plan is revised to update the name to a Strategic Community Investment Plan and to clarify the requirements that must be addressed in a plan as per language in Section 6401 of the 2018 Farm Bill.

New definitions for Multi-sectoral, Sector, and Strategic partners were added to implement changes from Section 6401 of the 2018 Farm Bill.

Section 1980.1010 is amended to include terminology from Section 6401 of the 2018 Farm Bill.

The Agency has revised requirements of the application process to conform to statutory changes outlined in Section 6401 of the 2018 Farm Bill and to clarify application and plan requirements. Data collected on the application form has been removed from the list of information to be provided, and a reference to the required application form has been included. A plan should address multiple jurisdictions, and the plan should document that there is participation by multiple stakeholders. A plan should demonstrate leveraging of the applicable region's assets and should document monetary and non-monetary contributions from strategic partners.

The scoring section has been revised to align to Section 6401 of the 2018 Farm Bill.

The award process section has been revised to align to the requirements of Section 6401 of the 2018 Farm Bill.

7 CFR 1980.1026 is removed and reserved. Projects will be evaluated through the criteria established in the individual covered program's notice for which the award was received, and additional reporting specific to the objectives in each plan is not required.

Additionally, conforming changes are made to 7 CFR parts 1779, 1780, 1942, 3570, 3575, 4279, and 4280 have been included to address the change in terms of “multi-sectoral” and “Strategic Community Investment Plans.”

Finally, the Farm Service Agency is being removed from title 7, chapter XVIII of the CFR as they no longer use any of the parts under this chapter. At one time, chapter XVIII was used by Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Rural Utilities Services, Rural Housing Service, and Farm Service Agency to codify policies and procedures. Due to reorganization within the Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency now codifies its policies and procedures in chapter VI of title 7 of the CFR. Chapter XVIII will now only be used to codify policies and procedures of the three agencies of the Rural Development Mission Area, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Rural Utilities Services, and Rural Housing Service.

RD programs affected by this rulemaking are shown in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) with numbers as indicated:

All active CFDA programs can be found at https://beta.sam.gov/, which officially replaced CFDA.gov.

This rule has been determined to be non-significant and therefore was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866.

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

The Programs listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under the following numbers are subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372 which requires Intergovernmental Consultation with state and local officials:

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

This document has been reviewed in accordance with 7 CFR part 1970, subpart A, “Environmental Policies.” RD has determined that this action does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the environment. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq., an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.

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

Under section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), RD certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rule affects applicants across covered RD programs. Many program applicants are small businesses. While this rule will affect small entities, RD has determined that the economic impact of the rule on these small entities will not be significant.

The rule does not make any changes to the programs from which funds will be reserved. The rule will require applicants to submit an additional form if seeking funding that is reserved for projects that support Strategic Community Investment Plans. Based on the data in the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) burden package, RD estimates that the cost to complete this form will, on average, be no more than $300. Therefore, this rule will not have a significant impact on small entities.

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

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

Rural Development has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian Tribes and determined that the rule does not, to our knowledge, have tribal implications that require tribal consultation under E.O. 13175.

Rural Development plans to use an inclusive definition of “plans” so that a wide range of plans that Indian Tribes currently have adopted and implemented may be used, as long as certain minimum standards are met. For instance, the plan must be multi-jurisdictional, multi-sectoral and include:

• A variety of activities designed to facilitate the vision of a rural community for the future, including considerations for improving and expanding broadband services as needed;

• Participation by multiple stakeholders, including local and regional partners;

• Leverage of applicable regional resources;

• Investment from strategic partners, such as private organizations, cooperatives, other government entities, Indian Tribes and philanthropic organizations;

• Clear objectives with the ability to establish measurable performance metrics;

• Action steps for implementation; and

• Any other elements necessary to ensure that the plan results in a comprehensive and strategic approach to rural economic development, as determined by the Secretary.

These minimum criteria do not pose any unique or additional implications or challenges for Tribes. The rule incentivizes additional planning, partnering and strategies between Tribes and other units of government/jurisdictions, such as other Indian Tribes, states, counties, cities, townships, towns, boroughs, etc. If a Tribe requests additional consultation, Rural Development will work with the Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions and modifications identified herein are not expressly mandated by Congress.

The information collection requirements contained in this regulation have been approved by OMB and have been assigned OMB control number: 0570-0068. This final rule contains no new reporting and recordkeeping requirements that would require approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

RD 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 citizens to access Government information and services electronically.

Rural Development has reviewed this rule in accordance with USDA Regulation 4300-4, Civil Rights Impact Analysis, to identify any major civil rights impacts the rule might have on program participants based on age, race, color, national origin, sex or disability. After review and analysis of the rule and available data, it has been determined that implementation of the rule will not adversely or disproportionately impact very low, low-, and moderate-income populations, minority populations, women or Indian Tribes by virtue of their race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, or marital or familial status. No major civil rights impact is likely to result from this rule.

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information ( e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by:

(1) Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410;

(2) Fax: (202) 690-7442; or

(3) Email: program.intake@usda.gov.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, chapters XVII, XVIII, XXXV, and XLII of title 7 Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2020-0166 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2020-0166.

• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. For the convenience of the reader, instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are provided in the “Availability of Documents” section.

• Attention: The Public Document Room (PDR), where you may examine and order copies of public documents, is currently closed. You may submit your request to the PDR via email at PDR.Resource@nrc.gov or call 1-800-397-4209 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. (EST), Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Please include Docket ID NRC-2020-0166 in your comment submission.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

This rule is limited to the changes contained in Amendment No. 9 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1031 and does not include other aspects of the NAC International, Inc. MAGNASTOR® Storage System design. The NRC is using the “direct final rule procedure” to issue this amendment because it represents a limited and routine change to an existing certificate of compliance that is expected to be non-controversial. The NRC has determined that, with the requested changes, adequate protection of public health and safety will continue to be ensured. The amendment to the rule will become effective on December 7, 2020. However, if the NRC receives any significant adverse comment on this direct final rule by October 22, 2020, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws this action and will subsequently address the comments received in a final rule as a response to the companion proposed rule published in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register . Absent significant modifications to the proposed revisions requiring republication, the NRC will not initiate a second comment period on this action.

A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:

(1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:

(a) The comment causes the NRC to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;

(b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or

(c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC.

(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition; or

(3) The comment causes the NRC to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule, certificate of compliance, or technical specifications.

Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, requires that “[t]he Secretary [of the Department of Energy] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission.” Section 133 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act states, in part, that “[t]he Commission shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under Section 219(a) [sic: 218(a)] for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.”

To implement this mandate, the Commission approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule which added a new subpart K in part 72 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) entitled “General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites” (55 FR 29181; July 18, 1990). This rule also established a new subpart L in 10 CFR part 72 entitled “Approval of Spent Fuel Storage Casks,” which contains procedures and criteria for obtaining NRC approval of spent fuel storage cask designs. The NRC subsequently issued a final rule on November 21, 2008 (73 FR 70587), that approved the NAC International, Inc. MAGNASTOR® Storage System design and added it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in § 72.214 as Certificate of Compliance No. 1031.

On October 9, 2019, as supplemented on April 9, 2020, and June 29, 2020, NAC International, Inc. submitted a request to amend Certificate of Compliance No. 1031 for the MAGNASTOR® Storage System. Amendment No. 9 revises the certificate of compliance as follows:

1. Adds a new concrete storage overpack, Concrete Cask Number 6 (CC6).

2. Adds four new heat load zone patterns (X, Y, Z, and Z-Prime) and their associated decay heats that are specific to Babcock and Wilcox (B&W) 15x15 fuel assemblies. These new heat load zone patterns are only authorized for use with the CC6 and MAGNASTOR® transfer cask number 2 (MTC2), which is a shortened, stainless steel version of the original MTC in the technical specifications.

3. Adds a new hybrid B&W 15x15 fuel assembly type (BW15H5).

4. Adds a new maximum enrichment for the BW15H2 hybrid fuel assembly of 5.0 weight percent of uranium-235, a new required minimum soluble boron concentration of 2650 parts per million of boron-10 during loading and unloading operations, and neutron absorber panels that have a required minimum areal density 0.036 grams of boron-10 per cubic centimeter.

In addition, Amendment No. 9 makes non-technical changes to reorganize Appendix B of the technical specifications to limit duplication of material and increase ease of use.

As documented in the preliminary safety evaluation report, the NRC performed a safety evaluation of the proposed certificate of compliance amendment request. The NRC determined that this amendment does not reflect a significant change in design or fabrication of the cask. Specifically, the NRC determined that the design of the cask would continue to prevent loss of containment, shielding, and criticality control in the event of each evaluated accident condition. This amendment does not reflect a significant change in design or fabrication of the cask. In addition, any resulting occupational exposure or offsite dose rates from the implementation of Amendment No. 9 would remain well within the limits specified by 10 CFR part 20, “Standards for Protection Against Radiation.” Thus, the NRC found there will be no significant change in the types or amounts of any effluent released, no significant increase in the individual or cumulative radiation exposure, and no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents.

The NRC determined that the amended NAC International, Inc. MAGNASTOR® Storage System cask design, when used under the conditions specified in the certificate of compliance, the technical specifications, and the NRC's regulations, will meet the requirements of 10 CFR part 72; therefore, adequate protection of public health and safety will continue to be reasonably assured. When this direct final rule becomes effective, persons who hold a general license under § 72.210 may, consistent with the license conditions under § 72.212, load spent nuclear fuel into NAC International, Inc. MAGNASTOR® Storage System casks that meet the criteria of Amendment No. 9 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1031.

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this direct final rule, the NRC revises the NAC International, Inc. MAGNASTOR® Storage System design listed in § 72.214, “List of approved spent fuel storage casks.” This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable requirements.

Under the “Agreement State Program Policy Statement” approved by the Commission on October 2, 2017, and published in the Federal Register on October 18, 2017 (82 FR 48535), this rule is classified as Compatibility Category NRC—Areas of Exclusive NRC Regulatory Authority. The NRC program elements in this category are those that relate directly to areas of regulation reserved to the NRC by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the provisions of 10 CFR chapter I. Therefore, compatibility is not required for program elements in this category. Although an Agreement State may not adopt program elements reserved to the NRC, and the Category “NRC” does not confer regulatory authority on the State, the State may wish to inform its licensees of certain requirements by means consistent with the particular State's administrative procedure laws.

The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31885).

Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the NRC's regulations in 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” the NRC has determined that this direct final rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. The NRC has made a finding of no significant impact on the basis of this environmental assessment.

The action is to amend § 72.214 to revise the NAC International, Inc. MAGNASTOR® Storage System listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to include Amendment No. 9 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1031.

This direct final rule amends the certificate of compliance for the NAC International, Inc. MAGNASTOR® Storage System design within the list of approved spent fuel storage casks to allow power reactor licensees to store spent fuel at reactor sites in casks with the approved modifications under a general license. Specifically, Amendment No. 9 revises the certificate of compliance to add (1) a new concrete storage overpack; (2) four new heat load zone patterns and their associated decay heats that are specific to B&W 15x15 fuel assemblies; (3) a new B&W 15x15 hybrid fuel assembly type (BW15H5); and (4) a new maximum enrichment for the BW15H2 hybrid fuel assembly, including a new minimum soluble boron concentration during loading and unloading operations and neutron absorber areal density. In addition, Amendment No. 9 makes non-technical changes to reorganize Appendix B of the technical specifications.

On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. The potential environmental impact of using NRC-approved storage casks was analyzed in the environmental assessment for the 1990 final rule. The environmental assessment for Amendment No. 9 tiers off of the environmental assessment for the July 18, 1990, final rule. Tiering on past environmental assessments is a standard process under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended.

The NAC International, Inc. MAGNASTOR® Storage System is designed to mitigate the effects of design basis accidents that could occur during storage. Design basis accidents account for human-induced events and the most severe natural phenomena reported for the site and surrounding area. Postulated accidents analyzed for an independent spent fuel storage installation, the type of facility at which a holder of a power reactor operating license would store spent fuel in casks in accordance with 10 CFR part 72, can include tornado winds and tornado-generated missiles, a design basis earthquake, a design basis flood, an accidental cask drop, lightning effects, fire, explosions, and other incidents.

The design of the cask would prevent loss of confinement, shielding, and criticality control in the event of each evaluated accident condition. If there is no loss of confinement, shielding, or criticality control, the environmental impacts resulting from an accident would be insignificant. This amendment does not reflect a significant change in design or fabrication of the cask. Because there are no significant design or process changes, any resulting occupational exposure or offsite dose rates from the implementation of Amendment No. 9 would remain well within the 10 CFR part 20 limits. Therefore, the proposed certificate of compliance changes will not result in any radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts that significantly differ from the environmental impacts evaluated in the environmental assessment supporting the July 18, 1990, final rule. There will be no significant change in the types or significant revisions in the amounts of any effluent released, no significant increase in the individual or cumulative radiation exposures, and no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from, radiological accidents. The NRC documented its safety findings in the preliminary safety evaluation report.

The alternative to this action is to deny approval of Amendment No. 9 and not issue the direct final rule. Consequently, any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee that seeks to load spent nuclear fuel into the NAC International, Inc. MAGNASTOR® Storage System in accordance with the changes described in proposed Amendment No. 9 would have to request an exemption from the requirements of §§ 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, interested licensees would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC and the costs to each licensee. The environmental impacts would be the same as the proposed action.

Approval of Amendment No. 9 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1031 would result in no irreversible commitment of resources.

No agencies or persons outside the NRC were contacted in connection with the preparation of this environmental assessment.

The environmental impacts of the action have been reviewed under the requirements in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the NRC's regulations in subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” Based on the foregoing environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that this direct final rule entitled “List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: NAC International, Inc. MAGNASTOR® Storage System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1031, Amendment No. 9” will not have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, the NRC has determined that an environmental impact statement is not necessary for this direct final rule.

This direct final rule does not contain any new or amended collections of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). Existing collections of information were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval number 3150-0132.

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC certifies that this direct final rule will not, if issued, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This direct final rule affects only nuclear power plant licensees and NAC International, Inc. These entities do not fall within the scope of the definition of small entities set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the NRC (§ 2.810).

On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent nuclear fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. Any nuclear power reactor licensee can use NRC-approved cask designs to store spent nuclear fuel if (1) it notifies the NRC in advance, (2) the spent fuel is stored under the conditions specified in the cask's certificate of compliance, and (3) the conditions of the general license are met. A list of NRC-approved cask designs is contained in § 72.214. On November 21, 2008 (73 FR 70587), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 that approved the NAC International, Inc. MAGNASTOR® Storage System design by adding it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in § 72.214.

On October 9, 2019, as supplemented on April 9, 2020, and June 29, 2020, NAC International, Inc. submitted a request to amend the MAGNASTOR® Storage System as described in Section IV, “Discussion of Changes,” of this document.

The alternative to this action is to withhold approval of Amendment No. 9 and to require any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee seeking to load spent nuclear fuel into the NAC International, Inc. MAGNASTOR® Storage System under the changes described in Amendment No. 9 to request an exemption from the requirements of §§ 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, each interested 10 CFR part 72 licensee would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC and the costs to each licensee.

Approval of this direct final rule is consistent with previous NRC actions. Further, as documented in the preliminary safety evaluation report and environmental assessment, this direct final rule will have no adverse effect on public health and safety or the environment. This direct final rule has no significant identifiable impact or benefit on other government agencies. Based on this regulatory analysis, the NRC concludes that the requirements of this direct final rule are commensurate with the NRC's responsibilities for public health and safety and the common defense and security. No other available alternative is believed to be as satisfactory, and therefore, this action is recommended.

The NRC has determined that the backfit rule (§ 72.62) does not apply to this direct final rule. Therefore, a backfit analysis is not required. This direct final rule revises Certificate of Compliance No. 1031 for the NAC International, Inc. MAGNASTOR® Storage System, as currently listed in § 72.214. The revision consists of the changes in Amendment No. 9 previously described, as set forth in the revised certificate of compliance and technical specifications.

Amendment No. 9 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1031 for the NAC International, Inc. MAGNASTOR® Storage System was initiated by NAC International, Inc. and was not submitted in response to new NRC requirements, or an NRC request for amendment. Amendment No. 9 applies only to new casks fabricated and used under Amendment No. 9. These changes do not affect existing users of the NAC International, Inc. MAGNASTOR® Storage System, and previous amendments continue to be effective for existing users. While current users of this storage system may comply with the new requirements in Amendment No. 9, this would be a voluntary decision on the part of current users.

For these reasons, Amendment No. 9 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1031 does not constitute backfitting under § 72.62 or § 50.109(a)(1), or otherwise represent an inconsistency with the issue finality provisions applicable to combined licenses in 10 CFR part 52. Accordingly, the NRC has not prepared a backfit analysis for this rulemaking.

This direct final rule is not a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.

The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.

The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal Rulemaking website at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2020-0166. The Federal Rulemaking website allows you to receive alerts when changes or additions occur in a docket folder. To subscribe: (1) Navigate to the docket folder NRC-2020-0166; (2) click the “Sign up for Email Alerts” link; and (3) enter your email address and select how frequently you would like to receive emails (daily, weekly, or monthly).

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is amending 10 CFR part 72 to read as follows:

Background: Under the provisions of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995  1 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-119, “Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities,” effective January 27, 2016, the FAA participates in the development of consensus standards and uses consensus standards as a means of carrying out its policy objectives where appropriate.

Consistent with the Small Airplane Revitalization Act of 2013, 2 the FAA has been working with industry and other stakeholders lop consensus standards for use as a means of compliance in certificating small airplanes under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 23. In promulgating part 23, amendment 23-64  3 (81 FR 96572, December 30, 2016), the FAA explained that if it determined such consensus standards were acceptable means of compliance to part 23, it would publish a notice of availability of those consensus standards in the Federal Register .

Pursuant to FAA Advisory Circular 23.2010-1, 4 “FAA Accepted Means of Compliance Process for 14 CFR part 23,” section 3.1.1, this notice serves as a formal acceptance by the Administrator of means of compliance based on consensus standards developed by ASTM. The means of compliance accepted by this notice are one means, but not the only means of complying with part 23 regulatory requirements.

The FAA reviewed 35 published ASTM consensus standards, developed by ASTM Committee F44, as the basis for means of compliance to 65 sections of part 23, amendment 23-64. In some cases, the Administrator finds sections of ASTM Standard F3264-19, “Standard Specification for Normal Category Aeroplanes Certification,” without changes, are accepted as means of complying with the airworthiness requirements of amendment 23-64, within the scope and applicability of the consensus standards. In other cases, the means of compliance, while based on ASTM consensus standards, include additional FAA provisions necessary to comply with the airworthiness requirements of amendment 23-64.

This document accepts only the revisions of standards referenced in ASTM Standard F3264-19, “Standard Specification for Normal Category Aeroplanes Certification.” Applicants who desire to use means of compliance reflected by other revisions to ASTM standards not previously accepted may seek guidance and possible acceptance from FAA for the use of those means of compliance on a case-by-case basis. Applicants may also propose alternative means of compliance for FAA review and possible acceptance.

Amendment 23-64 established airworthiness requirements based on the level of safety of amendment 23-63 regulations, except for areas addressing loss of control and icing where the safety level was increased. Achieving this level of safety through compliance with amendment 23-64—for a given certification project—may require use of additional means of compliance beyond those accepted by this notice, depending on the details of the specific design. For example, applicants with novel designs, such as unmanned airplanes or vertical takeoff and landing airplanes that are outside the scope and applicability of these consensus standards must propose alternative means of compliance, applicable to their designs, to be accepted under § 23.2010.

Further information on supplemental means of compliance is provided in a part 23 means of compliance summary table and in the Small Airplanes Issues List, which are available on the Small Airplanes—Regulations, Policies & Guidance website. 5

Means of Compliance Accepted in this Policy: The following is a list of part 23, amendment 23-64, sections followed by their corresponding means of compliance accepted by this notice. However, for means of compliance identified in the following list, Aircraft Type Code compliance matrix tables, which define applicability of the individual requirements of given standards, are not accepted in any ASTM F44 standard. Due to errors identified in the Aircraft Type Code compliance matrix tables, applicability of individual requirements of standards must be established with the Small Airplane Standards Branch.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Leonardo Model A119 and AW119 MKII helicopters with 90-degree TGB part number (P/N) 109-0440-06-101 or P/N 109-0440-06-105 having serial number 167, 169 through 172 inclusive, 215 through 225 inclusive, 227, 230, 232, 233, AW268, K3, K16, M47, or L29, installed. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 24, 2020 (85 FR 22970). The NPRM proposed to require within 25 hours time-in-service (TIS) or 3 months, whichever comes first, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS or 6 months, whichever occurs first, borescope inspecting the internal surface of the 90-degree TGB output shaft for corrosion. Depending on the inspection results, the NPRM proposed to require removing the TGB from service before further flight. The proposed requirements were intended to prevent corrosion on the internal surface of the 90-degree TGB output shaft, failure of the 90-degree TGB output shaft, and reduced control of the helicopter.

The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD No. 2018-0156, dated July 24, 2018 (EASA AD 2018-0156), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for Leonardo S.p.a. Helicopters (formerly Finmeccanica S.p.A., AgustaWestland S.p.A., Agusta S.p.A.; and AgustaWestland Philadelphia Corporation, formerly Agusta Aerospace Corporation) Model A119 and AW119MKII helicopters with 90-degree TGB P/N 109-0440-06-101 or P/N 109-0440-06-105 having serial number 167, 169 through 172 inclusive, 215 through 225 inclusive, 227, 230, 232, 233, AW268, K3, K16, M47, or L29, installed. EASA advises of two reported occurrences of corrosion on the internal surface of the 90-degree TGB shaft installed on Model A119 helicopters. Further analysis identified a specific batch of parts that may be susceptible to similar conditions. Due to design similarity, Model AW119MKII helicopters are also affected.

EASA states that this condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to failure of the tail rotor, possibly resulting in reduced control of the helicopter. Accordingly, the EASA AD requires performing repetitive endoscope inspections on the internal surface of the 90-degree TGB output shaft for corrosion and depending on the findings, replacing the TGB. EASA further states EASA AD 2018-0156 is considered an interim action and further AD action may follow.

The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD, but the FAA did not receive any comments on the NPRM.

These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA is issuing this AD after evaluating all information provided by EASA and determining the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed except for minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition and do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

The FAA reviewed Leonardo Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin No. 119-090, dated July 23, 2018, for Model A119 and AW119MKII helicopters, which contains procedures for conducting an endoscope inspection of the internal surface of the 90-degree TGB output shaft for corrosion. This service information also specifies replacing the TGB if corrosion is found.

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

The FAA estimates this AD affects 96 helicopters of U.S. Registry. The FAA estimates that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour.

Borescope inspecting the 90-degree TGB output shaft takes about 3 work-hours for an estimated cost of $255 per helicopter and $24,480 for the U.S. fleet per inspection cycle.

Replacing a (overhauled) TGB takes about 18 work-hours and parts cost about $49,000 (overhauled) for an estimated cost of $50,530 per helicopter.

According to Leonardo's service information, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. The FAA does not control warranty coverage by Leonardo. Accordingly, the FAA has included all costs in the 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 helicopters identified in this rulemaking action.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0019, dated February 5, 2020 (“EASA AD 2020-0019”) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -215, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. Model A320-215 airplanes are not certificated by the FAA and are not included on the U.S. type certificate data sheet; therefore, this AD does not include those airplanes in the applicability.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus SAS Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -215, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 10, 2020 (85 FR 20213). The NPRM was prompted by reports of crack findings in and around the fastener holes of the central and lateral window frame upper junction; those cracks were found on fastener holes outside of the inspection area specified in a certain ALI task. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections of the upper junction fastener holes at the lateral window frame for cracking; and for certain airplanes, repetitive inspections of the spotface around the fastener holes for cracking; and corrective actions if necessary; as specified in an EASA AD. The FAA is issuing this AD to address such cracking, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. See the MCAI for additional background information.

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

Delta Air Lines, Inc. (DAL) asked that the FAA include a statement that the proposed AD affects and is related to AD 2019-23-01, Amendment 39-19794 (84 FR 66579, December 5, 2019) (“AD 2019-23-01”), and could impact an operator's maintenance program. DAL stated that the procedures specified in Airbus Service Bulletins A320-53-1448 and A320-53-1449, both dated August 5, 2019 (referred to in EASA AD 2020-0019), cancel and replace Airworthiness Limitation Item (ALI) Task 531125, dated October 11, 2019, which is required in Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) part 2, revision 7. DAL added that FAA Global Alternative Method of Compliance (AMOC) AIR-676-20-138, dated April 4, 2020, approved ALS part 2, revision 8, which removes ALI Task 531125. DAL noted that, for operators that have incorporated revision 8 prior to issuance of the proposed AD, there would be a potential gap in tracking, and that adding the requested statement would bring awareness to the relationship between the specified service information, MCAI, affected ADs and ALI task.

The FAA acknowledges the commenter's concern, and provides the following clarification: AD 2019-23-01 does not mandate incorporation of ALS part 2, revision 08, in the operator's maintenance or inspection program. In addition, ALI Task 531125 was removed from ALS part 2, revision 8, for specific model airplanes with specific configurations. The FAA has no way to ascertain the impact on an individual operator's maintenance program and customize the AD requirements in accordance with DAL's maintenance or inspection program. However, under the provisions of paragraph (i) of this AD, the FAA will consider requests for approval of an AMOC if an operator's maintenance program is adversely affected by the requirements of this AD, if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that fact and that show the method used adequately addresses the unsafe condition identified in this AD. The FAA has not changed this AD regarding this issue.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:

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

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

EASA AD 2020-0019 describes procedures for repetitive inspections of the upper junction fastener holes at the lateral window frame for cracking, repetitive inspections of the spotface around the fastener holes for cracking, and corrective actions. Corrective actions include repair. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 938 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA has received no definitive data that will enable the FAA to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Leonardo S.p.A. Model AW169 helicopters and certain Leonardo S.p.A. Model AW189 helicopters. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 3, 2020 (85 FR 34139). The NPRM was prompted by a report of a broken extrusion rubber window seal, part number (P/N) A417AF001WB. The NPRM proposed to require installation of a reinforcement around the rubber filler wedge where the extrusion rubber window seal meets the door's emergency exit handle. The FAA is issuing this AD to address broken extrusion rubber window seals, which could result in an excessive load required to release the emergency exit window, possibly resulting in delayed evacuation of helicopter occupants during an emergency.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (now European Union Aviation Safety Agency) (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, issued EASA AD 2018-0197, dated September 5, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Leonardo S.p.A. Model AW169 helicopters and certain Leonardo S.p.A. Model AW189 helicopters. EASA advises of a broken extrusion rubber window seal, P/N A417AF001WB. According to EASA, an investigation determined that the damage to the rubber filler wedge of the rubber window seal could have been caused by the excessive tension of the string applied during the installation of an affected emergency exit handle. EASA advises that this condition, if not corrected, could result in an excessive load to release the emergency exit window, possibly resulting in delayed evacuation of helicopter occupants during an emergency. EASA states that, due to design similarities, the same unsafe condition could exist or develop on certain Model AW189 helicopters. To correct this condition, EASA AD 2018-0197 requires installation of a reinforcement around the rubber filler wedge where the extrusion rubber window seal meets the door's emergency exit handle. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0460.

The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:

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

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

Leonardo Helicopters has issued Alert Service Bulletin 169-094, Revision A, dated August 13, 2018; and Alert Service Bulletin 189-170, dated July 25, 2018. This service information describes procedures for installation of a reinforcement around the rubber filler wedge where the extrusion rubber window seal meets the door's emergency exit handle. These documents are distinct since they apply to different aircraft models. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 10 helicopters of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model MBB-BK 117 D-2 helicopters. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 28, 2020 (85 FR 23489). The NPRM was prompted by a report of an erroneous low rotor RPM indication after establishing an OEI condition. The NPRM proposed to require a SW modification for the AMC. The FAA is issuing this AD to address erroneous low RPM indications, which could cause the pilot to make inappropriate control inputs, resulting in damage to the helicopter or injury to occupants.

The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019-0208, dated August 22, 2019 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model MBB-BK 117 D-2 helicopters. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0342.

The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:

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

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

Airbus Helicopters has issued Alert Service Bulletin MBB-BK117 D-2-42A-005, Revision 3, dated June 6, 2019. This service information describes procedures for a SW modification for the AMC.

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

The MCAI provides a 60-day compliance time for accomplishing the SW modification. This AD requires completion of the SW modification within 50 hours time-in-service.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 30 helicopters of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and the FAA did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, the FAA invites you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit them only one time.

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 file in the docket all comments received, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the comment period. The FAA will consider all the comments received and may conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.

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 Matt Fuller, AD Program Manager, Continued Operational Safety Branch, Airworthiness Products Section, General Aviation and Rotorcraft Unit, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone 817-222-5110; email matthew.fuller@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The FAA issued AD 2000-22-19, Amendment 39-11967 (65 FR 68071, November 14, 2000) (“AD 2000-22-19”), for Eurocopter France (now Airbus Helicopters) Model SA330F, G, and J helicopters with a T/R blade part number (P/N) 330A12-0000-(all dash numbers), 330A12-0000-(all dash numbers), or 330A12-0006-(all dash numbers), installed.

AD 2000-22-19 required, within a compliance time interval based on whether a de-icing system was installed, repetitively inspecting each T/R blade for skin debonding and eddy current inspecting for a crack. The FAA issued AD 2000-22-19 to prevent fatigue cracking of a T/R blade, failure of a T/R blade, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Since the FAA issued AD 2000-22-19, EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, issued EASA AD No. 2016-0059-E, dated March 22, 2016 (EASA AD 2016-0059-E), to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters (formerly Eurocopter, Eurocopter France, Aerospatiale) Model SA 330 J helicopters. EASA AD 2016-0059-E retains the requirements of Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC) France AD 87-032-052(B)R3, dated January 23, 1991, which it supersedes, and also mandates improved service instructions.

Airbus Helicopters issued the improved service instructions in Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 05.101, Revision 0, dated March 21, 2016, to extend the eddy current inspection area and specify new tooling to inspect the extended area.

Also, since the FAA issued AD 2000-22-19, it was identified that AD 2000-22-19 inadvertently listed T/R blade P/N 330A12-0000-(all dash numbers) twice in its applicability and omitted T/R blade P/N 330A12-0005-(all dash numbers). This final rule removes T/R blade P/N 330A12-0000-(all dash numbers) altogether from the applicability because these part-numbered T/R blades have been retired from the fleet and expands the applicability by adding helicopters with T/R blade P/N 330A12-0005-(all dash numbers) installed.

Additionally, at the request of Airbus Helicopters, Model SA330F and G helicopters have been removed from the FAA Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS). According to Airbus Helicopters, none of these aircraft models are in existence. EASA, the state of design, has also removed these models from its TCDS. As a result, the FAA is removing these models from the applicability.

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

Airbus Helicopters has issued Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 05.101, Revision 0, dated March 21, 2016, for Model SA330J helicopters with certain T/R blades with and without a de-icing system installed. This service information specifies procedures for a visual and in-depth inspection of the T/R blades for skin debonding and an eddy current inspection of the T/R blades for a crack using various crack detectors.

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

This AD requires within 30 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the effective date of this AD or within 30 hours TIS after last inspecting the T/R blades as required by paragraph (a) of AD 2000-22-19, whichever occurs first, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 15 hours TIS for blades with de-icing systems installed or 30 hours TIS for blades without de-icing systems installed:

• Accomplishing a visual and in-depth inspection of each T/R blade for debonding. If there is debonding within allowable limits, this AD requires repairing or replacing the T/R blade before further flight. If there is debonding that exceeds allowable limits, this AD requires replacing the T/R blade before further flight.

• Eddy current inspecting each blade for a crack. If there is a crack, this AD requires replacing the T/R blade before further flight.

This AD also prohibits installing an affected T/R blade on any helicopter unless it passes the inspections required by this AD.

The EASA AD requires returning a T/R blade with debonding that exceeds allowable limits or a crack to Airbus Helicopters, whereas this AD requires replacing the T/R blade instead.

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 15 helicopters of U.S. Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD.

Inspecting the T/R blades for debonding takes about 0.75 work-hour for an estimated cost of $64 per helicopter and $960 for the U.S. fleet, per inspection cycle. Eddy current inspecting the T/R blades for a crack takes about 1.75 work-hours for an estimated cost of $149 per helicopter and $2,235 for the U.S. fleet, per inspection cycle.

If required, replacing a T/R blade takes about 4 work-hours and parts cost about $19,000, for an estimated cost of $19,340.

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

An unsafe condition exists that 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 because fatigue cracking in a T/R blade could lead to failure of a T/R blade and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. This type of fatigue cracking in a T/R blade could cause a pilot to perform an emergency landing. Because these helicopters primarily conduct operations over water or forested mountains, the FAA determined the corrective action must be completed within 30 hours TIS, a time period of up to approximately two months based on the average flight-hour utilization rates of these helicopters. Therefore, 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.

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

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

The FAA determined that this 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, I certify that this AD:

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

2. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

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

The Entity List (15 CFR, subchapter C, part 744, Supplement No. 4) identifies entities reasonably believed to be involved in, or to pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved in, activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. The Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 CFR parts 730-774) impose additional license requirements on, and limit the availability of most license exceptions for, exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to listed entities. The license review policy for each listed entity is identified in the “License review policy” column on the Entity List, and the impact on the availability of license exceptions is described in the relevant Federal Register document adding entities to the Entity List. BIS places entities on the Entity List pursuant to part 744 (Control Policy: End-User and End-Use Based) and part 746 (Embargoes and Other Special Controls) of the EAR.

The End-User Review Committee (ERC), composed of representatives of the Departments of Commerce (Chair), State, Defense, Energy and, where appropriate, the Treasury, makes all decisions regarding additions to, removals from, or other modifications to the Entity List. The ERC makes all decisions to add an entry to the Entity List by majority vote and all decisions to remove or modify an entry by unanimous vote.

This rule implements the decision of the ERC to add forty-seven entities, under fifty-one entries (four entities are identified in two destinations) to the Entity List. The forty-seven entities are being added based on § 744.11 (License requirements that apply to entities acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States) of the EAR. The entities are located in Canada, the People's Republic of China (China), Hong Kong, Iran, Malaysia, Oman, Pakistan, Thailand, Turkey, United Arab Emirates (UAE) and the United Kingdom.

The ERC reviewed and applied § 744.11(b) (Criteria for revising the Entity List) in making the determination to add these forty-seven entities to the Entity List. Under that paragraph, persons for whom there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, that they have been involved, are involved, or pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved in, activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States, along with those acting on behalf of such persons, may be added to the Entity List. Paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of § 744.11 provide an illustrative list of activities that could be contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States.

The ERC determined to add “Affiliated Supply and Consultancy Services,” “Busan International,” “IMCO Technology and Services,” and “Iqbal Enterprises” under the destination of Pakistan. Specifically, the ERC determined to add “Busan International” and “IMCO Technology and Services” to the Entity List on the basis of their contributions to unsafeguarded nuclear activities”. “Affiliated Supply and Consultancy Services” has been involved in the procurement of U.S.-origin goods in association with Pegasus General Trading FZC, an entity added to the Entity List on March 16, 2020 (85 FR 14794). “Iqbal Enterprises” is added to the Entity List for its contributions to unsafeguarded nuclear activities.

The ERC determined to add “Business Empire International” and “KTK Engineering (PVT) LTD” to the Entity List under the destination of Pakistan as well as to add “S&D Industry Ltd.,” “Rigsol Well Drilling Equipment Trading,” and “E and I Systems FZE” to the Entity List under the destination of the UAE all for actions contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. Specifically, the ERC determined to add these entities to the Entity List for their contributions to unsafeguarded nuclear activities.

The ERC determined to add “Ahmad Nozad Gholik,” “Behnam Pouremadi,” “Hamid Sepehrian,” “Mojtaba Farhadi Ganjeh,” and “Sayyed Javad Ahmadi” to the Entity List under the destination of Iran for actions contrary to the national security or foreign policy interest of the United States. Specifically, these individuals are added on the basis of their support for nuclear-related activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy of the United States.

The ERC determined to add to the Entity List “Blue Lines FZE” under the destinations of Turkey and the UAE; “MKB Pacific Air SDN BHD” under the destination of Malaysia; “Ajmal Aviation” under the destination of the UAE; and “Blue Lines Company” as well as two associated individuals—“Mahdi Keivan Bahari” and “Mahsa Keivan Bahari”—under the destination of Iran. These entities were instrumental in the procurement and/or re-transfer of U.S.-origin items to Iran, in violation of the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations and the EAR, and are implicated as being directly involved in activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States as set forth in § 744.11(b) of the EAR.

The ERC determined to add “Landa Ariya Electronic Co.” to the Entity List under the destinations of China and Iran as well as its employees “Ali Basati,” “Mohsen Asraftaba,” and “Behnaz Moazen” under the destination of Iran. In addition, the ERC determined to add “Oriental Logistics Group LTD” and its employee “Roin Luo” as well as “Shenzhen Iprogift Technology Co., Ltd,” “Shenzhen Shunjinxin Import & Export Co. Ltd.,” and “Suki Zhan” to the Entity List under the destination of China. “Oriental Logistics Group LTD” is also being added under the destination of Hong Kong, along with “Hong Kong Fung Tak Enterprise.” There is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, that these ten entities were involved in the diversion of U.S.-origin unmanned aerial vehicle parts, as well as other items, to Iran via China without the required licenses.

The ERC determined to add to the Entity List “Airborne Logistics LLC” under the destination of Oman; “Aviation Network Associates” and “PremiAir Aerospace” under the destination of the United Kingdom; “FARSCO Aviation MRO Centre” under the destination of Iran; “Marilog Avion Services Company” under the destination of Thailand; and “Transworld Aviation” under the destination of the UAE, and certain employees of these entities. Specifically, ERC determined to add to the Entity List “Marilog Avion Services Company Limited” and its principal employees “Mohamad Rifan,” and “Ibrahim Nasir”; “PremiAir Aerospace” and its principal employees “Graham Avery,” and “Daniel Basden”; “Aviation Network Associates” and its principal employee “Chas Newport”; “Transworld Aviation” and its principal employees “Shehab Bin Braik Al Breiki,” “Abdulla K. Al Suleimani,” “Lufti Busaidi Sulaiman,” and “Mohamed Nashir”; “Airborne Logistics LLC” and “FARSCO Aviation MRO Centre” and its principal employees “S.M. Mirbagheri” and “Rouhollah Abdollahi.” These entities have been involved in a scheme to illicitly procure Bell 412 helicopters on behalf of Iranian end-user, “FARSCO Aviation MRO Centre.”

For thirty-nine of the forty-seven entities added to the Entity List in this final rule, BIS imposes a license requirement for all items subject to the EAR and a license review policy of presumption of denial. For “Busan International,” “Business Empire International,” “E and I Systems FZE,” “IMCO Technology and Services,” “Iqbal Enterprises,” “KTK Engineering (PVT) LTD,” “Rigsol Well Drilling Equipment Trading,” and “S&D Industry Ltd.,” BIS imposes the license review policy set forth in § 744.2(d) of the EAR, a nuclear end-user and end-use based provision. No license exceptions are available for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) to the entities being added to the Entity List in this rule. The acronym “a.k.a.” (also known as) is used in entries on the Entity List to identify aliases, thereby assisting exporters, reexporters, and transferors in identifying entities on the Entity List.

For the reasons described above, this final rule adds the following forty-seven entities under fifty-one entries to the Entity List.

• Ibrahim Nasir.

• Landa Ariya Electronic Co;

• Oriental Logistics Group LTD;

• Roin Luo;

• Shenzhen Iprogift Technology Co., Ltd;

• Shenzhen Shunjinxin Import & Export Co. Ltd.; and

• Suki Zhan.

• Hong Kong Fung Tak Enterprise; and

• Oriental Logistics Group LTD.

• Ahmad Nozad Gholik;

• Ali Basati;

• Behnam Pouremadi;

• Behnaz Moazen;

• Blue Lines Company;

• FARSCO Aviation MRO Centre;

• Hamid Sepehrian;

• Landa Ariya Electronic Co.;

• Mahdi Keivan Bahari;

• Mahsa Keivan Bahari;

• Mohsen Asraftaba;

• Mojtaba Farhadi Ganjeh;

• Rouhollah Abdollahi;

• S. M. Mirbagheri; and

• Sayyed Javad Ahmadi.

• MKB Pacific Air SDN BHD.

• Airborne Logistics LLC.

• Affiliated Supply and Consultancy Services;

• Busan International;

• Business Empire International;

• IMCO Technology and Services;

• Iqbal Enterprises; and

• KTK Engineering (PVT) LTD.

• Marilog Avion Services Company, Limited; and

• Mohamad Rifan.

• Blue Lines FZE.

• Abdulla K. Al Suleimani;

• Ajmal Aviation;

• Blue Lines FZE;

• E and I Systems FZE;

• Ibrahim Nasir;

• Lufti Busaidi Sulaiman;

• Mohamed Nashir;

• Rigsol Well Drilling Equipment Trading;

• S&D Industry Ltd.;

• Shehab Bin Braik Al Breiki; and

• Transworld Aviation.

• Aviation Network Associates;

• Chas Newport;

• Daniel Basden;

• Graham Avery; and

• PremiAir Aerospace.

In this final rule, BIS is correcting the Federal Register citation for four existing entries on the Entity List under the destination of China. These entities were added to the Entity List under the destination of China on October 9, 2019 (84 FR 54004) and June 5, 2020 (85 FR 34505), and modified on July 22, 2020 (85 FR 44159). In the July 22, 2020, final rule, the entries for “Nanjing Fiberhome,” “NetPosa,” “SenseNets,” and “Shihezi Municipality” did not include the Federal Register citation. This rule is adding the Federal Register citation for these four entities.

Shipments of items removed from eligibility for a License Exception or export or reexport without a license (NLR) as a result of this regulatory action that were en route aboard a carrier to a port of export or reexport, on September 22, 2020, pursuant to actual orders for export or reexport to a foreign destination, may proceed to that destination under the previous eligibility for a License Exception or export or reexport NLR.

On August 13, 2018, the President signed into law the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, which included the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA), 50 U.S.C. 4801-4852. ECRA provides the legal basis for BIS's principal authorities and serves as the authority under which BIS issues this rule.

Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. This rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to or be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This regulation involves collections previously approved by OMB under control number 0694-0088, Simplified Network Application Processing System, which includes, among other things, license applications, and carries a burden estimate of 42.5 minutes for a manual or electronic submission. Total burden hours associated with the PRA and OMB control number 0694-0088 are not expected to increase as a result of this rule.

This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

Pursuant to § 1762 of ECRA, this action is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requirements for notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date.

Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required and none has been prepared.

Accordingly, part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) is amended as follows:

In the Federal Register of July 29, 2020, (85 FR 45505), FDA published the final rule “Postmarketing Safety Reports for Approved New Animal Drugs; Electronic Submission Requirements” with errors in table 2.

In FR Doc. 2020-15441, appearing on page 45509 in the Federal Register of July 29, 2020, the following corrections are made:

As in effect before its repeal, section 958(b)(4) provided that section 318(a)(3)(A), (B), and (C) (providing for downward attribution) was not to be applied so as to consider a United States person as owning stock owned by a person who is not a United States person (a “foreign person”). Section 14213 of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Public Law 115-97 (the “Act”) repealed section 958(b)(4), effective for the last taxable year of foreign corporations beginning before January 1, 2018, and each subsequent year of the foreign corporations, and for the taxable years of United States shareholders (as defined in section 951(b)) (“U.S. shareholders”) in which or with which such taxable years of the foreign corporations end. As a result of this repeal, stock of a foreign corporation owned by a foreign person can be attributed to a United States person under section 318(a)(3) for various purposes, including for purposes of determining whether a United States person is a U.S. shareholder of the foreign corporation and, therefore, whether the foreign corporation is a controlled foreign corporation (within the meaning of section 957) (“CFC”).

On October 2, 2019, the Department of the Treasury (“Treasury Department”) and the IRS published proposed regulations (REG-104223-18) relating to the repeal of section 958(b)(4) by the Act, in the Federal Register (84 FR 52398) (the “proposed regulations”). Additional guidance related to the repeal of section 958(b)(4), including relief from certain information reporting requirements and safe harbors for determining whether a foreign corporation is a CFC and for determining certain items of a CFC (such as taxable income and earnings and profits) based on alternative information, was issued along with the proposed regulations. See Revenue Procedure 2019-40, 2019-43 I.R.B. 982. No public hearing on the proposed regulations was requested or held. All of the written comments that were received by the Treasury Department and the IRS in response to the proposed regulations are available at www.regulations.gov or upon request. This Treasury decision adopts the proposed regulations as final regulations with the modifications discussed in the Summary of Comments and Explanation of Revisions section of this preamble. Comments outside of the scope of this rulemaking are generally not addressed but may be considered in connection with future guidance.

A notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register (REG-110059-20) provides regulations under section 954(c)(6) to ensure that the operation of section 954(c)(6) is consistent with its application before the Act's repeal of section 958(b)(4). The notice of proposed rulemaking also modifies the regulations under section 367(a) regarding the direct or indirect transfer of stock or securities of a domestic corporation by a United States person (as defined in section 7701(a)(30)) to a foreign corporation to ensure the attribution rules are applied consistently following the Act's repeal of section 958(b)(4).

The final regulations, like the proposed regulations, generally make modifications to ensure that the operation of certain rules outside of subpart F of subchapter N of chapter 1 of the Code (“subpart F”) are consistent with their application before the Act's repeal of section 958(b)(4). Comments generally supported the approach of the proposed regulations but requested additional modifications, as discussed in more detail in this Summary of Comments and Explanation of Revisions.

Section 267(a)(2) sets forth a matching rule that generally provides that if a payment is made to a related person and is not includible in the payee's gross income until paid, the amount is not allowable as a deduction to the taxpayer until the amount is includible in the gross income of the payee (“general matching rule”). Pursuant to regulations issued under section 267(a)(3)(A), 1 subject to certain exceptions, a taxpayer must use the cash method of accounting for deductions of amounts owed to a related foreign person (“foreign payee rule”). The foreign payee rule does not apply to the following amounts: (i) A foreign source amount, other than interest, that is not effectively connected with the conduct of a U.S. trade or business; (ii) an amount, other than interest, that is exempt from U.S. taxation pursuant to a treaty obligation of the United States; and (iii) an amount that is effectively connected with the conduct of a U.S trade or business (although payments in this clause (iii) are subject to the general matching rule of section 267(a)(2)). See § 1.267(a)-3(b) and (c)(1) and (2).

Section 267(a)(3)(B)(i) provides that, notwithstanding the foreign payee rule in section 267(a)(3)(A), in the case of any item payable to a CFC, a deduction is allowable to the payor for any taxable year before the year in which the payment is made only to the extent that an amount attributable to the item is includible during such prior taxable year in the gross income of a United States person who owns (within the meaning of section 958(a)) stock in such CFC (“CFC payee rule”). Under the proposed regulations, however, an amount (other than interest) that is income of a related foreign person and exempt from U.S. taxation pursuant to a treaty obligation of the United States was not subject to the CFC payee rule if the related foreign person is a CFC that did not have any U.S. shareholders that owned (within the meaning of section 958(a)) stock in such CFC (a “section 958(a) U.S. shareholder”). See proposed § 1.267(a)-3(c)(4).

A comment received shortly before the proposed regulations were published suggested that the regulations should broadly provide that, with respect to all payments subject to section 267(a)(3), the CFC payee rule in section 267(a)(3)(B)(i) applies only to the extent a recipient CFC has one or more section 958(a) U.S. shareholders and that it should be applied without regard to the repeal of section 958(b)(4). Consistent with the purpose of the general matching rule in section 267(a)(2) and in order for the foreign payee rule in section 267(a)(3)(A) to apply consistently with its application before the repeal of section 958(b)(4), the Treasury Department and the IRS agree that, with respect to all payments (including interest) subject to section 267(a)(3), the CFC payee rule in section 267(a)(3)(B)(i) should not apply if a recipient CFC does not have any section 958(a) U.S. shareholders who are required to include amounts in income with respect to the CFC. However, the Treasury Department and the IRS do not agree that the CFC payee rule should be applied without regard to the repeal of section 958(b)(4), because that could permit the avoidance of the CFC payee rule (and the purposes of the matching rule in general) in foreign-parented structures where a section 958(a) U.S. shareholder is required to include amounts in income with respect to a recipient foreign corporation that is a CFC due solely to the repeal of section 958(b)(4). Accordingly, the exception from the CFC payee rule in proposed § 1.267(a)-3(c)(4) is expanded in the final regulations to apply to all amounts payable to a related foreign person that is a CFC that does not have any section 958(a) U.S. shareholders. See § 1.267(a)-3(c)(4). As a result, the foreign payee rule in section 267(a)(3)(A) and the regulations under that section will apply to those payments exempt from the application of the CFC payee rule. However, the CFC payee rule continues to apply to a CFC that has a section 958(a) shareholder even if the foreign corporation is a CFC due solely to the repeal of section 958(b)(4).

Section 881(c) exempts from tax under section 881(a) U.S.-source portfolio interest received by a foreign corporation (“portfolio interest exception”). For this purpose, portfolio interest generally includes interest paid on a debt obligation that is in registered form but excludes, among other things, interest received by a CFC from a related person (within the meaning of section 864(d)(4)). See section 881(c)(2) and (3). The repeal of section 958(b)(4) results in foreign corporations that were previously not CFCs (and thus potentially eligible for the portfolio interest exception for interest received from related persons) being ineligible for the exception on such interest.

A comment requested that the general approach of the proposed regulations to exclude, where appropriate, CFCs that are CFCs solely as a result of the repeal of section 958(b)(4) be extended to the portfolio interest exception so that CFCs that were not previously CFCs could continue to be eligible for the portfolio interest exception. The rules set forth in the proposed regulations were all issued pursuant to specific grants of regulatory authority, and the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that there is no statutory or regulatory authority to modify the limitation on the portfolio interest exception for payments received by CFCs from a related person. Accordingly, the recommendation is not adopted.

The comment also requested that the Treasury Department and the IRS issue guidelines for withholding agents that might not be in a position to know whether a payee was affected by the repeal of section 958(b)(4) and thus might not know whether the payee qualifies for the portfolio interest exception or whether the withholding agent may be required to withhold under section 1442. The comment posited scenarios in which a U.S. payor would not necessarily have the information to determine whether a foreign corporation payee is a CFC and thus would err on the side of withholding as if it were a CFC.

A withholding agent is generally subject to an actual knowledge or reason to know standard. See § 1.1441-7(b)(1). A withholding agent is considered to have reason to know with respect to a claim relevant to withholding under chapter 3 (including section 1442) if “its knowledge of relevant facts or of statements contained in the withholding certificates or other documentation is such that a reasonably prudent person in the position of the withholding agent would question the chapter 3 claims made.” See § 1.1441-7(b)(2). The Treasury Department and the IRS have concluded that this standard is appropriate for withholding agents, and additional rules applicable only to portfolio interest are not necessary. Moreover, it would be outside of the scope of this rulemaking to provide rules generally applicable to the standard of diligence applicable to withholding agents. Accordingly, the suggestion is not adopted.

Section 1248(a) provides that certain gain recognized on the sale or exchange of stock of a foreign corporation by a United States person is included in the gross income of that person as a dividend if (i) the foreign corporation was a CFC at any time during the five-year period ending on the date of the sale or exchange, and (ii) the United States person owned or is considered to have owned, within the meaning of section 958, 10 percent or more of the total combined voting power of the foreign corporation at any time during that five-year period. A comment suggested that, consistent with the approach taken in the proposed regulations with respect to other sections, section 958(b) should be applied without regard to the repeal of section 958(b)(4) for purposes of section 1248 to prevent unintended consequences.

The final regulations do not adopt this comment because the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that section 958(b), as modified by the Act, should apply for purposes of section 1248. This treatment is consistent with the application of section 958(b) for purposes of the subpart F provisions, and this consistent treatment is appropriate because one of the types of transactions that the repeal of section 958(b)(4) was intended to address—that is, transactions used to avoid the subpart F provisions, including decontrolling a foreign subsidiary to convert a CFC to a non-CFC—could also be used to avoid the section 1248 provisions.

The proposed regulations modified the definition of a CFC for purposes of section 1297(e) to disregard downward attribution from foreign persons. See proposed § 1.1297-1(d)(1)(iii)(A). On July 11, 2019, the Treasury Department and the IRS published other proposed regulations (REG-105474-18) under § 1.1297-1 in the Federal Register (84 FR 33120) (the “PFIC proposed regulations”). The Treasury Department and the IRS have decided to finalize proposed § 1.1297-1(d)(1)(iii)(A) as part of the Treasury Decision finalizing the PFIC proposed regulations.

Generally, under chapter 61 of subtitle F of the Code, a payor must report to the IRS (using the appropriate Form 1099) certain payments or transactions with respect to United States persons that are not exempt recipients. The regulations under chapter 61 generally provide that the scope of payments or transactions subject to reporting under chapter 61 depends, in part, on whether or not the payor is a U.S. payor (as defined in § 1.6049-5(c)(5)(i)), which generally includes United States persons and their foreign branches, as well as CFCs. To mitigate the increased Form 1099 reporting by foreign corporations that may have no direct or indirect owners that are United States persons, in accordance with the regulatory authority provided in section 6049(a), proposed § 1.6049-5(c)(5)(i)(C) provided that a U.S. payor includes only a CFC that is a CFC without regard to downward attribution from a foreign person.

A comment requested that the exception from Form 1099 reporting be expanded to all CFCs, even if they would be CFCs without regard to the repeal of section 958(b)(4), due to the burden of the required reporting and the interaction with the requirements of local law to which CFCs are subject. Because the comment does not relate to the consequences of the repeal of section 958(b)(4), it is outside of the scope of these regulations. As a result, the rules in proposed § 1.6049-5 are finalized as proposed.

These regulations generally apply on or after October 1, 2019. For taxable years before taxable years covered by the regulations, a taxpayer may generally apply the rules set forth in the final regulations to the last taxable year of a foreign corporation beginning before January 1, 2018, and each subsequent taxable year of the foreign corporation, and to taxable years of U.S. shareholders in which or with which such taxable years of the foreign corporation end, provided that the taxpayer and United States persons that are related (within the meaning of section 267 or 707) to the taxpayer consistently apply the relevant rule with respect to all foreign corporations. See section 7805(b)(7). Moreover, although § 1.958-2 applies to taxable years of foreign corporations ending on or after October 1, 2019, and taxable years of U.S. shareholders in which or with which such taxable years of foreign corporations end, the same result applies before such date due to the effective date of the repeal of section 958(b)(4).

Section 5.01 of Notice 2018-13 (2018-6 I.R.B. 341) is obsolete as of September 22, 2020.

IRS Revenue Procedures, Revenue Rulings, notices, and other guidance cited in this document are published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin and are available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20402, or by visiting the IRS website at http://www.irs.gov.

These regulations are not subject to review under section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866 pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement (April 11, 2018) between the Treasury Department and the Office of Management and Budget regarding review of tax regulations.

It is hereby certified that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of section 601(6) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6). The regulations do not impose any new costs on taxpayers. Moreover, the regulations generally affect CFCs and U.S. shareholders of CFCs. CFCs, as foreign corporations, are not considered small entities. Nor are U.S. taxpayers considered small entities to the extent the taxpayers are natural persons or entities other than small entities. Thus, the regulations generally only affect small entities if a U.S. taxpayer that is a U.S. shareholder of a CFC is a small entity.

Consequently, the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that the regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Notwithstanding this certification, the Treasury Department and the IRS invite comments on the impacts of these regulations on small entities.

Pursuant to section 7805(f), the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding this regulation was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business. No comments were received.

The principal authors of the regulations are Karen J. Cate and Christina G. Daniels of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International). However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in the development of the regulations.

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:

The Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GA EPD) submitted a revision to its SIP in a letter dated October 18, 2019, 1 modifying Rule 391-3-1-.03(13), Emission Reduction Credits, 2 in the State's air permitting rules. This submittal revises the counties in which sources may create emission reduction credits (ERCs). This change aligns Georgia's ERC program with the current status of counties designated nonattainment or contributing to a nonattainment area.

Georgia's October 18, 2019, SIP submittal revises the counties listed in Rule 391-3-1-.03(13)(a) to ensure that only sources in counties currently designated nonattainment—and counties  3 contributing to the ambient air quality in the nonattainment area—may participate in the ERC program. The details of the submittal and EPA's rationale for approving the changes are discussed in a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) dated May 22, 2020. See 85 FR 31112. Comments were due on the May 22, 2020, NPRM by June 22, 2020. No comments were received on the proposed action.

These changes clarify eligibility for sources in certain counties to bank and create ERCs. These changes also make paragraph 391-3-1-.03(13)(a) consistent with current provisions under the State's Nonattainment New Source Review permitting program. 4 EPA also notes that the ERC program is a flexibility tool used by States and affected sources to comply with otherwise applicable requirements and is not expected to impact emissions in the State. Therefore, EPA concludes that these changes are consistent with the CAA and applicable EPA regulations. 5

In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.03(13), entitled “Emission Reduction Credits,” effective September 26, 2019, 6 to clarify which sources in which areas of the State are eligible to create and bank emission reduction credits. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation. 7

On December 20, 2019, HHS published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register (84 FR 70139) to amend the regulations implementing the NOTA to remove financial barriers to organ donation by expanding the scope of reimbursable expenses incurred by living organ donors. The NPRM provided for a 60-day comment period, and HHS received 267 comment letters raising a variety of issues. HHS has carefully considered all comments in developing this rule, as outlined in Section V below, and presents a summary of all significant comments and Departmental responses.

As discussed in the NPRM, every 10 minutes, another person is added to the national organ transplant waiting list, and approximately 20 people die every day while waiting for a transplant. 1 The current approach to acquiring organs for transplantation relies on the altruism of deceased donors and their families and the voluntarism and altruism of living organ donors.

Living organ donation offers a viable transplant option, primarily for kidney and liver transplant candidates, and helps to reduce the overall number of individuals on the national organ transplant waiting list, thus improving the transplantation system overall. The President's E.O. 13879, “Advancing American Kidney Health,” emphasized that supporting living organ donors can help address the current demand for kidney transplants. That E.O. directed the HHS Secretary to propose a regulation that would expand the definition of allowable costs that can be reimbursed under HRSA's current Reimbursement of Travel and Subsistence Expenses Incurred toward Living Organ Donation program. This final rule addresses this E.O. requirement, which also included language specifically addressing reimbursement of lost wages along with child-care and elder-care expenses.

Living organ donation also delivers several additional benefits for the recipient, as described in the NPRM, including receipt of a better quality organ in a shorter time period and better clinical outcomes than those who continue on dialysis or receive a deceased donor kidney transplant. 2 However, all such benefits must be weighed against the donor risks, which include surgical and anesthesia-related complications and infections as well as the uncertainty of the long-term health effects on donors following living organ donation, which are currently being studied.

Congress provided specific authority under section 377 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 274f, 3 to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) for reimbursement of travel and subsistence expenses, which encompasses costs for travel to medical and clinical appointments, lodging, and meals, incurred by eligible individuals making living donations of their organs, and other individuals accompanying the living organ donors.

Within the same section of the PHS Act, Congress also authorized the Secretary to reimburse “incidental non-medical expenses” incurred by living organ donors under 42 U.S.C. 274f(a)(2), if the Secretary determines by regulation that reimbursements for such expenses are appropriate.

The National Living Donor Assistance Center (NLDAC)  4 operates the living organ donor reimbursement program funded by HRSA's Reimbursement of Travel and Subsistence Expenses Incurred toward Living Organ Donation grants program. Under the authority provided under section 377 of the PHS Act, as amended, the program is operated via cooperative agreement. The program's purpose is to help remove financial disincentives for living organ donations. In adherence to the authority outlined in the PHS Act, the program's Eligibility Guidelines currently provide that “qualifying expenses” include those incurred by the donor and his/her accompanying person(s) as part of: (1) Donor evaluation, (2) hospitalization for the living donor surgical procedure, and/or (3) medical or surgical follow-up, clinic visits, or hospitalization within two calendar years following the living donation procedure. 5 It is important to note that not all applicants or recipients of reimbursements will go on to donate an organ. Many factors may prevent an intended and willing donor from proceeding with the donation. Such circumstances include present health status of the intended donor or recipient that would prevent the transplant or donation from proceeding, perceived long-term risks to the intended donor, or unforeseen events outside the intended donor's control.

Regulations implemented under the authority of the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq. ) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. ) governing the harvest of BFT by persons and vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction are found at 50 CFR part 635. Section 635.27 subdivides the U.S. BFT quota recommended by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) and as implemented by the United States among the various domestic fishing categories, per the allocations established in the 2006 Consolidated Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan (2006 Consolidated HMS FMP) (71 FR 58058, October 2, 2006) and amendments. NMFS is required under ATCA and the Magnuson-Stevens Act to provide U.S. fishing vessels with a reasonable opportunity to harvest the ICCAT-recommended quota.

The current baseline General and Reserve category quotas are 555.7 mt and 29.5 mt, respectively. See § 635.27(a). Each of the General category time periods (January, June through August, September, October through November, and December) is allocated a “subquota” or portion of the annual General category quota. The baseline subquotas for each time period are as follows: 29.5 mt for January; 277.9 mt for June through August; 147.3 mt for September; 72.2 mt for October through November; and 28.9 mt for December. Any unused General category quota rolls forward from one time period to the next and is available for use in subsequent time periods. At the time of drafting this notice, NMFS has taken four actions that resulted in adjustments to the General and Reserve category quotas, resulting in currently adjusted quotas of 113 mt of quota for the Reserve category, 100 mt for the General category January through March 2020 subquota period, and 9.4 mt for the December 2020 subquota period (85 FR 17, January 2, 2020; 85 FR 6828, February 6, 2020; 85 FR 43148, July 16, 2020).

Under § 635.27(a)(9), NMFS has the authority to transfer quota among fishing categories or subcategories, after considering regulatory determination criteria provided under § 635.27(a)(8). NMFS has considered all of the relevant determination criteria and their applicability to this inseason quota transfer. These considerations include, but are not limited to, the following:

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

NMFS also considered the catches of the General category quota to date (including during the summer/fall and winter fisheries in the last several years), and the likelihood of closure of that segment of the fishery if no adjustment is made (§ 635.27(a)(8)(ii) and (ix)). Preliminary landings data as of September 15, 2020, indicate that the General category landed a cumulative total of 441.2 mt through August 31, which exceeds the cumulative adjusted quota available through August 31, i.e., 377.9 mt. Preliminary September landings as of September 15, 2020, are 114.2 mt, which represents 78 percent of the baseline September subquota (147.3 mt). At the time of drafting of this inseason action, the General category subquota has not yet been exceeded, but without a quota transfer at this time, NMFS would likely close the General category fishery shortly, and participants would have to stop bluefin tuna fishing activities while commercial-sized bluefin tuna remain available in the areas where General category permitted vessels operate at this time of year. Transferring 111.6 mt of quota from the Reserve category would account for 63.3 mt of accrued overharvest from the prior time periods and result in an additional 48.3 mt being available for the September 2020 subquota period after, thus effectively providing limited additional opportunities to harvest the U.S. bluefin tuna quota while avoiding exceeding it.

Regarding the projected ability of the vessels fishing under the particular category quota (here, the General category) to harvest the additional amount of BFT quota transferred before the end of the fishing year (§ 635.27(a)(8)(iii)), NMFS considered General category landings over the last several years and landings to date this year. Landings are highly variable and depend on access to commercial-sized BFT and fishing conditions, among other factors, such as the restrictions that some dealers placed on their purchases of BFT from General category participants this year. A portion of the transferred quota covers the 63.3-mt overharvest in the category to date, and NMFS anticipates that General category participants will be able to harvest the remaining 48.3 mt of transferred BFT quota by the end of the subquota time period. In the unlikely event that any of this quota is unused by September 30, such quota will roll forward to the next subperiod within the calendar year ( i.e., to the October through November period), and NMFS anticipates that it would be used before the end of the fishing year. NMFS also anticipates that some underharvest of the 2019 adjusted U.S. BFT quota will be carried forward to 2020 and placed in the Reserve category, in accordance with the regulations. Thus, this quota transfer would allow fishermen to take advantage of the availability of fish on the fishing grounds, and provide a reasonable opportunity to harvest the full U.S. BFT quota.

NMFS also considered the estimated amounts by which quotas for other gear categories of the bluefin tuna fishery might be exceeded (§ 635.27(a)(8)(iv)) and the ability to account for all 2020 landings and dead discards. In the last several years, total U.S. BFT landings have been below the available U.S. quota such that the United States has carried forward the maximum amount of underharvest allowed by ICCAT from one year to the next. NMFS will need to account for 2020 landings and dead discards within the adjusted U.S. quota, consistent with ICCAT recommendations, and anticipates having sufficient quota to do that.

NMFS also considered the effects of the adjustment on the BFT stock and the effects of the transfer on accomplishing the objectives of the FMP (§ 635.27(a)(8)(v) and (vi)). This transfer would be consistent with the current quotas, which were established and analyzed in the 2018 BFT quota final rule (83 FR 51391, October 11, 2018), and with objectives of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and amendments and is not expected to negatively impact stock health or to affect the stock in ways not already analyzed in those documents. Another principal consideration is the objective of providing opportunities to harvest the full annual U.S. BFT quota without exceeding it based on the goals of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and amendments, including to achieve optimum yield on a continuing basis and to optimize the ability of all permit categories to harvest their full BFT quota allocations (related to § 635.27(a)(8)(x)). Specific to the General category, this includes providing opportunity equitably across all time periods.

Based on the considerations above, NMFS is transferring 111.6 mt from the Reserve category to the General category. Of this amount, 63.3 mt accounts for preliminary overharvest of the January through March and June through August time period subquotas, and 48.3 mt is added to the September subquota. Therefore, NMFS adjusts the General category September 2020 subquota to 195.6 mt after accounting for the 63.3 mt of overharvest through for the prior 2020 time periods, and adjusts the Reserve category quota to 1.4 mt, the amount of Reserve category quota obligated for scientific research. Again, NMFS anticipates that some underharvest ( i.e., 127.3 mt) of the 2019 adjusted U.S. BFT quota will be carried forward to 2020 and placed in the Reserve category, in accordance with the regulations, in the next few weeks. The General category fishery will remain open until September 30, 2020, or until the adjusted General category quota is reached, whichever comes first.

NMFS will continue to monitor the BFT fishery closely. Dealers are required to submit landing reports within 24 hours of a dealer receiving BFT. Late reporting by dealers compromises NMFS' ability to timely implement actions such as quota and retention limit adjustment, as well as closures, and may result in enforcement actions. Additionally, and separate from the dealer reporting requirement, General and HMS Charter/Headboat category vessel owners are required to report the catch of all BFT retained or discarded dead within 24 hours of the landing(s) or end of each trip, by accessing hmspermits.noaa.gov or by using the HMS Catch Reporting app, or calling (888) 872-8862 (Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. until 4:30 p.m.).

Depending on the level of fishing effort and catch rates, NMFS may determine that additional action ( e.g., quota adjustment, daily retention limit adjustment, or closure) is necessary to enhance scientific data collection from, and fishing opportunities in, all geographic areas, and to ensure all available subquotas are not exceeded. If needed, subsequent adjustments will be published in the Federal Register . In addition, fishermen may call the Atlantic Tunas Information Line at (978) 281-9260, or access hmspermits.noaa.gov, for updates on quota monitoring and inseason adjustments.

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 635, which was issued pursuant to section 304(c), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

The Assistant Administrator for NMFS (AA) finds that pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest to provide prior notice of, and an opportunity for public comment on, this action for the following reasons:

The regulations implementing the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and amendments provide for inseason retention limit adjustments to respond to the unpredictable nature of BFT availability on the fishing grounds, the migratory nature of this species, and the regional variations in the BFT fishery. Affording prior notice and opportunity for public comment to implement the quota transfer for the September 2020 time period is also contrary to the public interest as such a delay would likely result in closure of the General category fishery when the baseline quota is met and the need to re-open the fishery, with attendant administrative costs and costs to the fishery. The delay would preclude the fishery from harvesting BFT that are available on the fishing grounds and that might otherwise become unavailable during a delay. This action does not raise conservation and management concerns. Transferring quota from the Reserve category to the General category does not affect the overall U.S. BFT quota, and available data shows the adjustment would have a minimal risk of exceeding the ICCAT-allocated quota.

NMFS notes that the public had an opportunity to comment on the underlying rulemakings that established the U.S. BFT quota and the inseason adjustment criteria.