The changes convert the AQL tables in the U.S. Standards for Grades of Grapefruit (Texas and States other than Florida, California, and Arizona) and the U.S. Standards for Grades of Oranges (Texas and States other than Florida, California, and Arizona) from showing the acceptable number of allowable defective fruit in each grade to showing the percentage of defects permitted in each grade, revise minimum sample size to 25 fruit, update size classifications, remove reference to Temple orange in the orange standards for grade, and more closely align terminology in both grade standards with Florida and California citrus standards. These revisions also affect the grade requirements under the marketing order (Order) Oranges and Grapefruit Grown in Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, 7 CFR part 906, issued under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (7 U.S.C. 601-674) and applicable imports.

This rule falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order 12866 review. Additionally, because this rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action, it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017, titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017). Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits, including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and distributive impacts and equity. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.

This action has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. The review reveals that this regulation would not have substantial and direct effects on Tribal governments and would not have significant Tribal implications.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect. There are no administrative procedures that must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule.

AMS continuously reviews fruit and vegetable grade standards to assess their effectiveness in the industry and to modernize language. On September 20, 2016, AMS received a request from the TVCC to modernize the language of and clarify the Texas citrus standards by removing outdated AQL tables. The standards were last revised in September 2003. AMS worked closely with the TVCC throughout the development of the proposed revisions, soliciting their comments and suggestions about the standards through discussion drafts that outlined the conversion from AQL tables to a defined percentage of defects permitted in each grade. The revised percentages correspond to those currently allowed in the AQL tables and more closely align with California and Florida orange and grapefruit standards.

Additional revisions to the Texas grapefruit standard include adding size 64 to the size classifications to align with sizes in the Order; changing the minimum sample size from 33 to 25 fruit; and changing the scoring basis for defects from a 70-size fruit to a 4 1/8 -inch grapefruit. Revisions to the Texas orange standard also include adding size 163 to the size classifications to align with sizes in the Order; changing the minimum sample size from 50 to 25 fruit; changing the scoring basis for defects from a 200-size fruit to a 2 7/8 -inch orange; and removing Temple oranges from the standard.

AMS also conducted a grapefruit shape survey with the TVCC to identify areas of the standards for revision in order to more closely align the Texas citrus standards with those of Florida and California. On May 23, 2018, AMS met with the TVCC to review the proposed revisions. These efforts culminated with the TVCC submitting a petition to AMS on June 12, 2018 to revise the U.S. standards for Texas oranges and grapefruit as discussed and approved at the May 2018 meeting. The revisions more closely align terminology related to defects and grade requirements with the Florida citrus grade standards as requested by the TVCC and align the standards with current industry practices.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened.

This rule will revise the U.S. Standards for Grades of Grapefruit (Texas and States other than Florida, California, and Arizona) and U.S. Standards for Grades of Oranges (Texas and States other than Florida, California, and Arizona) that were issued under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946. Standards issued under the 1946 Act are voluntary.

There are approximately 170 producers of grapefruit and oranges in the production area and 22 handlers subject to regulation under the Order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts less than $1,000,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $30,000,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

According to Texas Valley Citrus Committee (TVCC) data, the average price for Texas citrus during the 2018-19 season prices ranged from $11.69 to $25.78 per carton. The average price was $22.23 per carton ($11.69 plus $25.78 equals $37.47, divided by 2 equals $18.74 per carton) and total shipments were 6.6 million cartons. Using the average price, shipment information, and number of handlers, and assuming a normal distribution, the majority of handlers would have average annual receipts of less than $30,000,000 ($22.23 per carton times 6.6 million cartons equals $123.7 million, divided by 22 equals $5.6 million per handler).

In addition, based on National Agricultural Statistics Service information, the average Free on Board (f.o.b.) price for Texas citrus during the 2018-19 season was approximately $33.27 per carton. Using the average f.o.b. price, shipment information, and the number of producers, and assuming a normal distribution, the majority of producers would have annual receipts of $1.3 million, which is more than $1,000,000 ($33.27 per carton times 6.6 million cartons equals $219.6 million, divided by 170 equals $1.3 million per producer). Thus, the majority of producers of Texas citrus may be classified as large entities, while the majority of handlers of Texas citrus may be classified as small entities.

This rule will convert the AQL Tables from showing the acceptable number of allowable defective fruit in each grade to a percentage of defects permitted in each grade, revise minimum sample size to 25 fruit, update size classifications, remove references to Temple orange from the orange standards for grade, and more closely align terminology in both standards for grade with Florida and California citrus standards.

This action will make the standards more consistent with current marketing trends and practices. This action will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on small or large orange or grapefruit producers or handlers. USDA has not identified any Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule. However, there are marketing programs that regulate the handling of oranges and grapefruit under 7 CFR part 906. Oranges and grapefruit subject to the Order must meet certain requirements set forth in the grade standards for oranges and grapefruit.

On March 10, 2020, AMS published a Proposed Rule in the Federal Register (85 FR 13833) soliciting comments on revisions to the U.S. Standards for Grades of Grapefruit (Texas and States other than Florida, California, and Arizona) and U.S. Standards for Grades of Oranges (Texas and States other than Florida, California, and Arizona). One comment was submitted by May 11, 2020, the closing date of the public comment period.

The comment fully supported the revisions and commended the USDA for taking steps to bring standardization to the grading system used for Texas citrus, putting Texas in line with systems used in other citrus production areas of the United States.

Based on the information gathered, AMS is revising the U.S. Standards for Grades of Grapefruit (Texas and States other than Florida, California, and Arizona), and U.S. Standards for Grades of Oranges (Texas and States other than Florida, California, and Arizona).

For reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 51 is amended 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 various restricted category helicopters, originally manufactured by Sikorsky, Model EH-60A, HH-60L, S-70, S-70A, S-70C, S-70C(M), S-70C(M1), and UH-60A, with an M/R blade spindle cuff part number 70150-09109-041 installed. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 9, 2020 (85 FR 41221).

The NPRM was prompted by multiple reports of a cracked M/R blade spindle cuff. In 2008, Sikorsky reported an M/R blade spindle cuff on a Model UH-60A helicopter that cracked across the lower inboard bolt holes. Investigation determined the crack was caused by a non-conforming hole edge break, specifically a burr, introduced during an overhaul at a non-Sikorsky overhaul facility. Sikorsky issued Sikorsky Safety Advisory No. SSA-S70-08-002, dated December 11, 2008 (SSA-S70-08-002), for Black Hawk Model H-60- and S-70-series helicopters to inform operators of the incident and recommend compliance with Sikorsky's preventative maintenance inspections. The safety advisory also recommended that operators with M/R blades overhauled by a non-Sikorsky repair facility contact that facility to verify whether the hole edge radius requirement was met during the overhaul.

In 2015, the FAA received an additional report of an M/R blade spindle cuff on a military model helicopter that cracked. Investigation from this reporting has revealed no anomalies at the crack initiation site. In each instance, a crack initiated at a bolt hole and spread to either an adjacent bolt hole or to the free edge. Due to design similarity, Model EH-60A, HH-60L, S-70, S-70A, S-70C, S-70C(M), S-70C(M1), and UH-60A helicopters are all affected by this unsafe condition.

Accordingly, the NPRM proposed to require initial and recurring inspections of the M/R blade spindle cuff for a crack. The proposed requirements were intended to detect a crack, prevent failure of an M/R blade spindle cuff, loss of an M/R blade, and loss of control of the helicopter.

The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule, but the FAA did not receive any comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

The FAA is issuing this AD after evaluating all known relevant information and determining that an 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.

The FAA reviewed SSA-S70-08-002. This service information recommends, for helicopters with M/R blades overhauled by non-Sikorsky M/R blade repair facilities, contacting the facilities to verify whether the hole edge radius requirement was met during cuff replacement. The safety advisory also recommends operators conduct 10 hour/14 day visual inspections and follow the inspection procedures regarding sudden onset of low frequency vibration or an out of track condition.

The FAA also reviewed Sikorsky Technical Manual Preventative Maintenance Services 10 Hour/14 Day (30 Hour/42 Day) Inspection Checklist TM 1-70-PMS-1, dated December 1, 2014, for Sikorsky Model S-70 helicopters. This service information contains procedures for the 10 hour/14 day and 30 hour/42 day inspections.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 204 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.

Inspecting the M/R blade spindle cuffs takes about 1 work-hour for an estimated cost of $85 per helicopter and $17,340 for the U.S. fleet. Replacing an M/R blade spindle cuff takes about 175 work-hours and required parts cost about $10,000 for a total estimated replacement cost of $24,875 per M/R blade spindle cuff.

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 FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all GE CF6-80C2A5F, -80C2B1F, -80C2B2F, -80C2B4F, -80C2B5F, -80C2B6F, -80C2B6FA, -80C2B7F, -80C2B8F, -80C2D1F, -80C2K1F, -80C2L1F, -80E1A2, -80E1A3, -80E1A4, and -80E1A4/B model turbofan engines with a certain HMU installed. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 6, 2019 (84 FR 46896). The NPRM was prompted by a report of fuel coking of the HMU FMV EHSV resulting in tailpipe fire. The NPRM proposed to require the removal of the HMU and its replacement with a part eligible for installation. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

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

GE requested that the FAA update paragraph (c), Applicability, of this AD, to include “For CF6-80E engines that have complied with [GE Service Bulletin (SB)] CF6-80E1 SB 73-0129 `Introduction of ECU Software Version E.1.Q' no action is required.” GE reasoned that CF6-80E1 ECU Software Version E.1.Q was designed to avoid tailpipe fires caused by the malfunction of the HMU FMV EHSV. There have been no reported tailpipe fires on GE CF6-80E1 model turbofan engines that have installed ECU Software Version E.1.Q.

The FAA disagrees with updating the applicability of this AD to exclude engines with updated ECU Software Version E.1.Q. Although GE CF6-80E1 ECU Software Version E.1.Q addresses the known sequence of tailpipe fires by monitoring the HMU FMV position at low N2 speeds, which may relate to the unsafe condition in this AD, the FAA would need additional data that shows how the ECU software update addresses the potential for this failure to occur at other phases of flight. If the data reveal information relevant to this unsafe condition, the FAA will consider future rulemaking. The FAA did not change this AD.

An anonymous commenter requested that the FAA consider whether the modification of the HMU using GE CF6-80C2 SB 73-0378 R00, dated July 14, 2010 (“GE SB 73-0378”), is an AMOC [alternative method of compliance] to this AD. The commenter reasoned that the modification results in an HMU FMV EHSV with a new part number (P/N).

The FAA disagrees. GE SB 73-0378 introduces material properties to the HMU that improves corrosion resistance. GE SB 73-0378 does not, however, require the installation of a new or overhauled HMU FMV EHSV. The HMU with improved corrosion resistance introduced by GE SB 73-0378 is not related to the unsafe condition of this AD. Additionally, although GE SB 73-0378 results in a new HMU P/N after modification of the HMU, this AD still applies to this new P/N.

Honeywell requested that the FAA reduce the compliance time of paragraph (g), Required Actions, of this AD from 40,000 to 20,000 flight hours (FHs) since new or since last overhaul.

The FAA disagrees. The FAA does not have data to support reducing the removal and replacement of the HMU from 40,000 FHs to 20,000 FHs. According to reports from GE, which were considered by the FAA when preparing the NPRM, the related tailpipe fire incidents occurred in engines with HMUs exceeding 40,000 FHs since new or since the last overhaul. The FAA did not change this AD.

Delta Air Lines (DAL) requested that the FAA increase the initial compliance time to remove and replace the HMU from 180 days to 12 months or to a number of hours or cycles greater than 40,000 FHs, based on the level of risk. DAL stated that they have attempted to purchase additional units to support the compliance time of 40,000 FHs or 180 days proposed in the NPRM; however, there are few spares on the market. Additionally, DAL reasoned that the turnaround time for an overhaul of the HMU has not allowed DAL to progress as fast as required to meet the expected compliance deadline for units in their fleet.

Atlas Air Inc. (Atlas Air) also indicated that the volume of HMUs wherein operators will be unable to determine HMU FMV EHSV compliance will exceed the available compliant spares in the market. The lack of available HMUs will cause the grounding of a significant number of aircraft unless the AD allows for the completed overhaul to count as evidence of compliance (EoC) as documented by FAA Form 8130-3, Authorized Release Certificate, Airworthiness Approval Tag.

The FAA disagrees with increasing the compliance time for the required actions of this AD. The FAA infers that DAL's and Atlas Air's request to increase the compliance time of this AD, while mentioning the lack of spares and delays with the overhaul of the HMU, is the result of the definition of “an overhaul of the HMU” in paragraph (h)(2), Definitions, in the NPRM. The concern is that operators do not track usage time on the HMU FMV EHSV separately from the HMU and, therefore, would need to replace the complete HMU in all scenarios within 180 days. The FAA changed the definition of “an overhaul of the HMU” in this AD to clarify the methods that an HMU may be overhauled.

Honeywell requested that the FAA revise the definition of “an overhaul of the HMU” in the Definitions, paragraph (h)(2), of this AD, to clarify that an overhaul of the HMU is a “complete overhaul” of the HMU rather than just an overhaul of HMU FMV EHSV.

Based on its requested change to the definition, Honeywell also requested that the FAA add additional estimated costs to the Cost of Compliance section of this AD to include the estimated costs of a complete HMU overhaul.

The FAA agrees that performing a complete overhaul of the HMU addresses the unsafe condition of this AD. The FAA disagrees with requiring a complete overhaul of the HMU as only an overhaul of the HMU FMV EHSV is required to prevent fuel coking or fuel deposits in the HMU FMV EHSV. The FAA, however, changed the definition of “an overhaul of the HMU” to include either overhaul of the HMU (complete) or overhaul of the HMU FMV EHSV. The FAA added an estimate for the cost of a complete HMU overhaul since this is an acceptable means of complying with the requirements of this AD.

Several commenters requested clarification, as described below, of the definition of “an overhaul of the HMU” provided in paragraph (h)(2) of this AD.

FedEx Express (FedEx) and United Airlines (UAL) requested that the FAA clarify overhauled by “other FAA-approved methods.” FedEx asked what is the intended scope of this phrase and if it includes accomplishment of earlier revisions of GE SB CF6-80C2 SB 73-0436, as well as work performed using the applicable component maintenance manual (CMM) which was classified as an overhaul in block 11 of FAA Form 8130-3, Authorized Release Certificate, Airworthiness Approval Tag (or equivalent). UAL also asked if “other FAA-approved methods” included work accomplished using the CMM for the HMU FMV EHSV.

The FAA agrees “other FAA-approved methods” was unclear and has removed it from the definition for “an overhaul of the HMU.” The FAA added a credit for previous actions paragraph to provide credit for the initial removal and replacement required actions contained in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD if the HMU FMV EHSV was overhauled before the effective date of this AD using GE SB CF6-80C2 SB 73-0436 R01, dated May 14, 2019, or GE SB CF6-80C2 73-0142 R01, dated May 14, 2019. The FAA also changed the definition of “an overhaul of the HMU” in this AD to clarify that an HMU may be overhauled using Honeywell-approved maintenance procedures.

DAL, Kalitta Air Group (Kalitta Air), and United Parcel Service (UPS) requested that an overhaul of the HMU at an FAA or Honeywell-approved facility be considered an overhaul of the HMU that resets the 40,000 FHs requirement.

The FAA agrees and clarified the definition of “an overhaul of the HMU” in this AD to include “An overhaul of the HMU (complete) using Honeywell-approved maintenance procedures.”

All Nippon Airways (ANA) asked if an overhaul of the HMU includes overhauling all HMU EHSVs.

The FAA agrees that the overhaul of the HMU includes overhauling all HMU EHSVs. The FAA changed the definition of “an overhaul of the HMU” to include either overhaul of the HMU (complete) or overhaul of the HMU FMV EHSV. The FAA notes, however, that complete overhaul of the HMU is not required by this AD.

ANA, Atlas Air, DAL, FedEx, Kalitta Air, Thai Airways, and UPS stated that the HMU EHSVs are sub-assemblies of the HMU and repair or overhaul of these sub-components is not typically tracked separately from the HMU at an engine shop visit level. Therefore, overhaul of the HMU FMV EHSV is not recorded by most operators in a separate maintenance program record. The commenters reasoned that they received FAA Form 8130-3, Authorized Release Certificate, Airworthiness Approval Tag, documenting the HMU approval for return to service, but FAA Form 8130-3 does not include information about the EHSVs within the HMU. Atlas Air suggested that if the time since the most recent replacement of the HMU FMV EHSVs cannot be determined, then the time since overhaul (TSO) based on FAA Form 8130-3 be used as EoC to the AD for HMUs overhauled before the effective date of this AD.

The FAA acknowledges that the HMU FMV EHSVs are not typically tracked separately from the HMU. The FAA agrees that in cases where the overhaul of the HMU FMV EHSV cannot be determined, the TSO can be used as EoC to the AD for HMUs overhauled before the effective date of this AD. The FAA changed the definition of “an overhaul of the HMU” to include either overhaul of the HMU (complete) or overhaul of the HMU FMV EHSV.

DAL stated that paragraph (f) of this AD states, “Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.” Yet, the NPRM does not address what constitutes previous compliance.

The FAA notes that “unless already done,” as used in this AD, means performing the actions in paragraph (g), Required Actions, before the effective date of this AD.

An anonymous commenter asked if this AD affects the following statements in SAIB NE-09-25R2: “The FAA has determined that the performance properties of aviation turbine fuel are not impacted with up to 50 mg/kg of FAME [fatty acid methyl ester] under continuous usage . . .” and “At high enough concentrations, FAME can impact the thermal stability of the fuel that could lead to coke deposits in the fuel system.”

While FAME can impact the thermal stability of the fuel, leading to coke deposits in the fuel system, the HMU FMV EHSV fuel coking and fuel deposits of this AD is not related to FAME. The HMU FMV EHSV fuel coking and fuel deposits unsafe condition of this AD neither substantiates nor refutes SAIB NE-09-25R2. Therefore, this AD does not affect the SAIB guidance.

The Boeing Company and The Air Line Pilots Association, International, expressed support for the AD as written.

An anonymous commenter disagreed with Honeywell's suggestion to remove the HMU for a complete overhaul before reaching 20,000 FHs considering the root cause analysis is identified as high-time wear failure of the HMU FMV EHSV. The FAA infers that this comment represents support for the AD as written.

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

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

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

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

The FAA reviewed GE SB CF6-80C2 SB 73-0436 R02, dated August 15, 2019, and GE SB CF6-80E1 SB 73-0142 R02, dated August 15, 2019. The SBs provide instructions, differentiated by the turbofan engine model, for repetitive overhauls of the HMU FMV EHSVs. 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 573 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary overhaul. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might perform the overhaul of the HMU FMV EHSV or overhaul of the complete HMU:

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 action prohibits certain flight operations in the Tehran FIR (OIIX) by all: U.S. air carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising the privileges of an airman certificate issued by the FAA, except when such persons are operating U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except when the operator of such aircraft is a foreign air carrier. This action incorporates NOTAM KICZ A0002/20 into title 14 of the CFR. Consistent with other recently published flight prohibition SFARs, this action provides information about how to seek relief from this SFAR through the approval and exemption processes, as applicable.

The FAA is responsible for the safety of flight in the U.S. and for the safety of U.S. civil operators, U.S.-registered civil aircraft, and U.S.-certificated airmen throughout the world. Sections 106(f) and (g) of title 49, U.S. Code (U.S.C.), subtitle I, establish the FAA Administrator's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle VII of title 49, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. Section 40101(d)(1) provides that the Administrator shall consider in the public interest, among other matters, assigning, maintaining, and enhancing safety and security as the highest priorities in air commerce. Section 40105(b)(1)(A) requires the Administrator to exercise this authority consistently with the obligations of the U.S. Government under international agreements.

The FAA issues flight prohibition NOTAMs for airspace managed by other countries pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 40113(a), 44701(a)(5), and 46105(c). Subsection 46105(c) authorizes the FAA Administrator, when he is of the opinion that an emergency exists related to safety in air commerce and requires immediate action, to prescribe regulations and issue orders immediately to meet the emergency, with or without notice and without regard to Part A, Air Commerce and Safety, of Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, of title 49 U.S.C. and subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, the Administrative Procedure Act. However, subsection 46105(c) requires the FAA Administrator to “begin a proceeding immediately about an emergency under this subsection and give preference, when practicable, to the proceeding.” Where there are continuing significant hazards to the safety of U.S. civil aviation operations in airspace managed by another country, the appropriate follow-up proceeding is a rulemaking action to issue a flight prohibition SFAR.

The FAA is promulgating this rulemaking under the authority described in 49 U.S.C. 44701, General requirements. Under that section, the FAA is charged broadly with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing, among other things, regulations and minimum standards for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce and national security. This regulation is within the scope of the FAA's authority because it prohibits the persons described in paragraph (a) of SFAR No. 117, 14 CFR 91.1617, from conducting flight operations in the Tehran FIR (OIIX) due to the hazards to the safety of U.S. civil flight operations, as described in the preamble to this final rule.

Section 553(b)(3)(B) of title 5, U.S. Code, authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency for “good cause” finds those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Section 553(d) also authorizes agencies to forgo the delay in the effective date of the final rule for good cause found and published with the rule. In this instance, the FAA finds good cause exists to forgo notice and comment because notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. In addition, it is contrary to the public interest to delay the effective date of this SFAR.

The risk environment for U.S. civil aviation in airspace other countries manage with respect to safety of flight is fluid due to the risks posed by weapons capable of targeting, or otherwise negatively affecting, U.S. civil aviation, as well as other hazards to U.S. civil aviation associated with fighting, extremist or militant activity, or heightened tensions. This fluidity and the need for the FAA to rely upon classified information in assessing these risks make issuing notice and seeking comments impracticable and contrary to the public interest. With respect to the impracticability of notice and comment procedures, the potential for rapid changes in the risks to U.S. civil aviation significantly limits how far in advance of a new or amended flight prohibition the FAA can usefully assess the risk environment. Furthermore, to the extent these rules and any amendments to them are based upon classified information, the FAA is not legally permitted to share such information with the general public, who cannot meaningfully comment on information to which they are not legally allowed access.

Under these conditions, public interest considerations favor not providing notice and seeking comment for this rule. While there is a public interest in having an opportunity for the public to comment on agency action, there is a greater public interest in having the FAA's flight prohibitions, and any amendments thereto, reflect the agency's most current understanding of the risk environment for U.S. civil aviation. This allows the FAA to protect the safety of U.S. operators' aircraft and the lives of their passengers and crews without over-restricting U.S. operators' routing options.

The FAA has determined the incorporation into the CFR of the flight prohibition for U.S. civil aviation operations in the Tehran FIR (OIIX) contained in NOTAM KICZ A0002/20 is necessary due to safety-of-flight hazards associated with heightened military activities and increased political tensions in the Middle East. These hazards continue to present an inadvertent risk to U.S. civil aviation operations resulting from the potential for miscalculation or misidentification. This preamble further describes these hazards, which tragically resulted in the accidental shoot down by Iranian air defense forces of Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 (PS 752) just hours after the FAA issued NOTAM KICZ A0002/20.

In addition to the reasons identified in the forgoing discussion, it is also contrary to the public interest to delay the effective date of this final rule because it makes no changes to the boundaries of an existing FAA flight prohibition for U.S. civil aviation operations. Also, delaying the effective date would not change the compliance obligations of U.S. operators and airmen, who are already prohibited from operating in the Tehran FIR (OIIX) by NOTAM KICZ A0002/20.

Accordingly, the FAA finds good cause to forgo notice and comment and any delay in the effective date for this rule.

Between April 2007 and January 2020, the FAA had flight advisory NOTAMs in place for the Tehran FIR (OIIX) due to Iranian military capabilities; various military activities occurring in, emanating from, or transiting the Tehran FIR (OIIX); and difficulties associated with de-conflicting those activities with civil air traffic. In addition, Iran had publicly threatened U.S. military operations in the region and possessed a wide variety of anti-aircraft-capable weapons, including surface-to-air missile systems (SAMs), man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS) and fighter aircraft capable of conducting aircraft interception operations. Some anti-aircraft-capable weapons had ranges encompassing key international air routes over the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. In early 2019, Iran conducted a military exercise in the region, demonstrating their unmanned aircraft system (UAS) capabilities. The FAA also determined Iran could increase its use of Global Positioning System (GPS) jammers and other communication jamming capabilities, which might affect U.S. civil aviation operating in the Tehran FIR (OIIX) and in overwater airspace over the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.

After the United States withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan for Action (hereinafter, the “Iran Nuclear Agreement”) in May 2018 and designated Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) in April 2019, Iran began posturing military capabilities on its southern coast to project strength and influence in the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman region. Additionally, the United States assessed Iran to have been responsible for sabotage attacks on multiple merchant vessels in the region in May 2019. On June 19, 2019, IRGC elements shot down a U.S. military Global Hawk unmanned aircraft operating in airspace over the Gulf of Oman with a SAM system. The successful intercept of the unmanned aircraft followed a June 13, 2019, failed intercept attempt of a U.S.-operated unmanned aircraft conducting observation of damaged oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman.

Although Iran likely had no intention to target civil aircraft, the FAA determined the presence and demonstrated use of long-range, advanced anti-aircraft-capable weapons during heightened tensions and in close proximity to heavily flown international air routes posed an unacceptable level of risk to U.S. civil flights in the overwater portions of the Tehran FIR (OIIX) above the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. Iran possessed and continues to possess a wide variety of anti-aircraft-capable weapons, including SAMs, MANPADs, and fighter aircraft capable of conducting aircraft interception operations. Some of Iran's anti-aircraft-capable weapons have ranges encompassing certain heavily flown international air routes over the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. The FAA was concerned Iranian air defense forces might inadvertently engage a civil aircraft due to miscalculation or misidentification.

In response to this unacceptable level of inadvertent risk to U.S. civil aviation, the FAA issued NOTAM KICZ A0019/19 on June 21, 2019, UTC, to prohibit operations in the overwater area of the Tehran FIR (OIIX) above the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman by: All U.S. air carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising the privileges of an airman certificate issued by the FAA, except when such persons are operating U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except when the operator of such aircraft is a foreign air carrier.

After issuing NOTAM KICZ A0019/19, the FAA continued to monitor regional tensions closely as they further escalated. Iran continued its elevated military posturing on its southern coast, projecting air defense coverage beyond the boundaries of the Tehran FIR (OIIX). In mid-September 2019, the United States assessed Iranian forces to have been responsible for conducting a complex attack using UAS and missiles to target Saudi Aramco's energy infrastructure. In late-December 2019, Iranian-backed Shia militia groups conducted a rocket attack targeting U.S. forces located at a coalition base near Kirkuk, Iraq, resulting in casualties and precipitating U.S. retaliatory airstrikes on Shia militia-associated facilities in Iraq and Syria. This series of events further heightened regional tensions.

On January 2, 2020, UTC, U.S. forces conducted an airstrike near Baghdad International Airport (ORBI) in Iraq, which killed IRGC Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani. In a televised address, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei stated Iran would engage in “harsh retaliation” for Soleimani's death. On January 7, 2020, UTC Iran conducted retaliatory ballistic missile strikes targeting U.S. air bases in Iraq. Due to the heightened military activities, including heightened alert status of Iranian military forces, including Iranian air defense forces, and increased political tensions in the Middle East, including the potential for further escalation, the FAA determined an unacceptable risk to U.S. civil aviation existed in the Baghdad FIR (ORBB), the Tehran FIR (OIIX), and the overwater areas of the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman due to the potential for miscalculation or misidentification.

To address these immediate safety-of-flight hazards, on January 7, 2020, UTC, the FAA issued KICZ NOTAMs A0001/20, A0002/20, and A0003/20, which prohibited civil flight operations in the Baghdad FIR (ORBB), the Tehran FIR (OIIX), and the overwater airspace above the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, respectively, by: All U.S. air carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising the privileges of an airman certificate issued by the FAA, except when such persons are operating U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except when the operator of such aircraft is a foreign air carrier. This rulemaking action is limited in scope to the Tehran FIR (OIIX).

Tragically, within hours after the FAA issued NOTAM KICZ A0002/20, Iranian air defense forces accidentally shot down Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 (PS 752), shortly after its departure from Tehran Imam Khomeini International Airport (OIIE). These forces apparently misidentified the aircraft, which was conducting a regularly scheduled passenger flight, as a missile threat. There were no survivors out of the 176 passengers and crew.

The FAA is also concerned about the wide array of military activities occurring in, emanating from, or transiting the Tehran FIR (OIIX), in an environment of heightened regional tensions. There is the potential for Iranian ballistic missile fire from western Iran targeting Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham (ISIS) and Kurdish opposition groups located in the region, as occurred in September 2018 and June 2017. Since 2017, Iran has also conducted multiple ballistic missile test launches in the Tehran FIR (OIIX), with the latest medium-range ballistic missile launch taking place in late December 2019. To the FAA's knowledge, Iran did not issue a NOTAM or other aeronautical information to warn civil aircraft operators of the potential hazard to their operations prior to the missile launch. Additionally, a potential inadvertent risk to U.S. civil aviation operations in the Tehran FIR (OIIX) from Iranian-fielded GPS and communication jammers continues to exist. These circumstances further contribute to the unacceptable risk environment for U.S. civil aviation in the Tehran FIR (OIIX).

Codifying the flight prohibition pursuant to this final rule is critical for U.S. civil aviation safety, given the uncertainty about how long the above-described hazards to civil aviation will persist; whether Iran will be transparent in its investigation into the downing of PS 752; and whether Iran will implement changes in its air defense command and control procedures, airspace de-confliction processes, and rules of engagement for air defense engagements to prevent further tragedies sufficient to allow for safe U.S. civil aviation operations in the Tehran FIR (OIIX). As a result, this new SFAR incorporates the flight prohibition contained in the NOTAM KICZ A0002/20 into the CFR.

The FAA will continue to monitor the situation and evaluate the extent to which U.S. civil operators and airmen might be able to operate safely in the Tehran FIR (OIIX). Amendments to SFAR No. 117, § 91.1617, could be appropriate if the risk to aviation safety and security changes. The FAA may amend or rescind SFAR No. 117, § 91.1617, as necessary, prior to its expiration date.

The FAA also is publishing the details concerning the approval and exemption processes in Sections V and VI of this preamble to enable interested persons to refer to this final rule for all relevant information about seeking relief from SFAR No. 117, § 91.1617.

In some instances, U.S. Government departments, agencies, or instrumentalities may need to engage U.S. civil aviation to support their activities in the Tehran FIR (OIIX). If a department, agency, or instrumentality of the U.S. Government determines it has a critical need to engage any person described in SFAR No. 117, § 91.1617, including a U.S. air carrier or commercial operator, to conduct a charter to transport civilian or military passengers or cargo or other operations in the Tehran FIR (OIIX), that department, agency, or instrumentality may request the FAA to approve persons described in SFAR No. 117, § 91.1617, to conduct such operations.

The requesting department, agency, or instrumentality of the U.S. Government must submit the request for approval to the FAA's Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety in a letter signed by an appropriate senior official of the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality. 1 The FAA will not accept or consider requests for approval from anyone other than the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality. In addition, the senior official signing the letter requesting FAA approval on behalf of the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality must be sufficiently positioned within the organization to demonstrate the senior leadership of the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality supports the request for approval and is committed to taking all necessary steps to minimize operational risks to the proposed flights. The senior official must also be in a position to: (1) Attest to the accuracy of all representations made to the FAA in the request for approval, and (2) ensure any support from the requesting U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality described in the request for approval is in fact brought to bear and is maintained over time. Unless justified by exigent circumstances, requests for approval must be submitted to the FAA no less than 30 calendar days before the date on which the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality wishes the proposed operation(s) to commence.

The requestor must send the request to the Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591. Electronic submissions are acceptable, and the requesting entity may request the FAA notify it electronically as to whether the approval request is granted. If a requestor wishes to make an electronic submission to the FAA, the requestor should contact the Air Transportation Division, Flight Standards Service, at (202) 267-8166, to obtain the appropriate email address. A single letter may request approval from the FAA for multiple persons described in SFAR No. 117, § 91.1617, or for multiple flight operations. To the extent known, the letter must identify the person(s) expected to be covered under the SFAR on whose behalf the U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality is seeking FAA approval, and it must describe—

• The proposed operation(s), including the nature of the mission being supported;

• The service to be provided by the person(s) covered by the SFAR;

• To the extent known, the specific locations in the Tehran FIR (OIIX) where the proposed operation(s) will be conducted, including, but not limited to, the flight path and altitude of the aircraft while it is operating in the Tehran FIR (OIIX) and the airports, airfields, or landing zones at which the aircraft will take-off and land; and

• The method by which the department, agency, or instrumentality will provide, or how the operator will otherwise obtain, current threat information and an explanation of how the operator will integrate this information into all phases of the proposed operations ( i.e., pre-mission planning and briefing, in-flight, and post-flight phases).

The request for approval must also include a list of operators with whom the U.S. Government department, agency, or instrumentality requesting FAA approval has a current contract(s), grant(s), or cooperative agreement(s) (or its prime contractor has a subcontract(s)) for specific flight operations in the Tehran FIR (OIIX). Additional operators may be identified to the FAA at any time after the FAA approval is issued. Both the operators listed in the original request and any operators that the requestor subsequently seeks to add to the approval must be identified to the FAA, and obtain an Operations Specification (OpSpec) or Letter of Authorization (LOA) from the FAA, as appropriate, for operations in the Tehran FIR (OIIX), before such operators commence operations. The approval conditions discussed below apply to all operators, whether included in the original list or subsequently added to the approval. Updated lists should be sent to the email address to be obtained from the Air Transportation Division by calling (202) 267-8166.

If an approval request includes classified information, requestors may contact Aviation Safety Inspector Stephen Moates for instructions on submitting it to the FAA. His contact information is listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this final rule.

FAA approval of an operation under SFAR No. 117, § 91.1617, does not relieve persons subject to this SFAR of their responsibility to comply with all other applicable FAA rules and regulations. Operators of civil aircraft must comply with the conditions of their certificate, OpSpecs, and LOAs, as applicable. Operators must also comply with all rules and regulations of other U.S. Government departments or agencies that may apply to the proposed operation(s), including, but not limited to, regulations issued by the Transportation Security Administration.

If the FAA approves the request, the FAA's Aviation Safety organization will send an approval letter to the requesting department, agency, or instrumentality informing it that the FAA's approval is subject to all of the following conditions:

(1) The approval will stipulate those procedures and conditions that limit, to the greatest degree possible, the risk to the operator, while still allowing the operator to achieve its operational objectives.

(2) Before any approval takes effect, the operator must submit to the FAA:

(a) A written release of the U.S. Government from all damages, claims, and liabilities, including without limitation legal fees and expenses, relating to any event arising out of or related to the approved operations in the Tehran FIR (OIIX); and

(b) The operator's written agreement to indemnify the U.S. Government with respect to any and all third-party damages, claims, and liabilities, including without limitation legal fees and expenses, relating to any event arising from or related to the approved operations in the Tehran FIR (OIIX).

(3) Other conditions the FAA may specify, including those that may be imposed in OpSpecs or LOAs, as applicable.

The release and agreement to indemnify do not preclude an operator from raising a claim under an applicable non-premium war risk insurance policy issued by the FAA under chapter 443 of title 49, U.S. Code.

If the FAA approves the proposed operation(s), the FAA will issue an OpSpec or LOA, as applicable, to the operator(s) identified in the original request authorizing them to conduct the approved operation(s), and will notify the department, agency, or instrumentality that requested the FAA's approval of any additional conditions beyond those contained in the approval letter.

Any operations not conducted under an approval issued by the FAA through the approval process set forth previously must be conducted under an exemption from SFAR No. 117, § 91.1617. A petition for exemption must comply with 14 CFR part 11. The FAA will consider whether exceptional circumstances exist beyond those contemplated by the approval process described in the previous section. To determine whether a petition for exemption from the prohibition this SFAR establishes fulfills the standard of 14 CFR 11.81, the FAA consistently finds necessary the following information:

• The proposed operation(s), including the nature of the operation;

• The service to be provided by the person(s) covered by the SFAR;

• The specific locations in the Tehran FIR (OIIX) where the proposed operation(s) will occur, including, but not limited to, the flight path and altitude of the aircraft while it is operating in the Tehran FIR (OIIX) and the airports, airfields and/or landing zones at which the aircraft will take-off and land;

• The method by which the operator will obtain current threat information and an explanation of how the operator will integrate this information into all phases of its proposed operations ( i.e., the pre-mission planning and briefing, in-flight, and post-flight phases); and

• The plans and procedures the operator will use to minimize the risks, identified in this preamble, to the proposed operations, so that granting the exemption would not adversely affect safety or would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by this SFAR. The FAA has found comprehensive, organized plans and procedures of this nature to be helpful in facilitating the agency's safety evaluation of petitions for exemption from flight prohibition SFARs.

The FAA includes, as a condition of each such exemption it issues, a release and agreement to indemnify, as described previously.

The FAA recognizes that, with the support of the U.S. Government, the governments of other countries may plan operations that SFAR No. 117, § 91.1617, affects. While the FAA will not permit these operations through the approval process, the FAA will consider exemption requests for such operations on an expedited basis and prior to other exemption requests.

If a petition for exemption includes security-sensitive or proprietary information, requestors may contact Aviation Safety Inspector Stephen Moates for instructions on submitting it to the FAA. His contact information is listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this final rule.

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

In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined this final rule has benefits that justify its costs. This rule is a significant regulatory action, as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as it raises novel policy issues contemplated under that Executive Order. This rule also complies with the requirements of the Department of Transportation's administrative rule on rulemaking at 49 CFR part 5. As notice and comment under 5 U.S.C. 553 are not required for this final rule, the regulatory flexibility analyses described in 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 regarding impacts on small entities are not required. This rule will not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector, by exceeding the threshold identified previously.

This rule prohibits U.S. civil flights in the Tehran FIR (OIIX) by incorporating the flight prohibition contained in NOTAM KICZ A0002/20 into the CFR as a result of the significant risks to U.S. civil aviation detailed in the preamble of this final rule. U.S. Government departments, agencies, and instrumentalities may take advantage of the approval process on behalf of U.S. operators and airmen with whom they have a contract, grant, or cooperative agreement, or with whom their prime contractor has a subcontract. U.S. operators and airmen whose operations in the Tehran FIR (OIIX) are not conducted under any of the foregoing types of arrangements with the U.S. Government may petition for exemption from this rule.

The FAA acknowledges this flight prohibition may result in additional costs to some U.S. operators, such as increased fuel costs and other operational-related costs. However, the FAA expects the benefits of this action exceed the costs because it will result in the avoidance of risks of fatalities, injuries, and property damage that could result from a U.S. operator's aircraft being shot down (or otherwise damaged) while operating in the Tehran FIR (OIIX). The FAA will continue to monitor the situation actively.

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

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

The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this final rule and determined that its purpose is to protect the safety of U.S. civil aviation from risks to aircraft operations in the Tehran FIR (OIIX), a location outside the U.S. Therefore, this final rule is in compliance with the Trade Agreements Act of 1979.

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

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

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that there is no new requirement for information collection associated with this final rule.

In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, the FAA's policy is to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to this regulation. The FAA finds that this action is fully consistent with the obligations under 49 U.S.C. 40105(b)(1)(A) to ensure that the FAA exercises its duties consistently with the obligations of the United States under international agreements.

While the FAA's flight prohibition does not apply to foreign air carriers, DOT codeshare authorizations prohibit foreign air carriers from carrying a U.S. codeshare partner's code on a flight segment that operates in airspace for which the FAA has issued a flight prohibition. In addition, foreign air carriers and other foreign operators may choose to avoid, or be advised or directed by their civil aviation authorities to avoid, airspace for which the FAA has issued a flight prohibition.

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

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

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

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

Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this action would have no effect on international regulatory cooperation.

This rule is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, because it is issued with respect to a national security function of the United States.

An electronic copy of a rulemaking document may be obtained from the internet by—

• Searching the docket for this rulemaking at https://www.regulations.gov;

• Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies; or

• Accessing the Government Publishing Office's website at https://www.govinfo.gov.

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

Except for classified material, all documents the FAA considered in developing this rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from the internet through the docket for this rulemaking.

The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) (Pub. L. 104-121) (set forth as a note to 5 U.S.C. 601) requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document may contact its local FAA official, or the persons listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble. To find out more about SBREFA on the internet, visit http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

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

This amendment to part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) amends, suspends, or revokes IFR altitudes governing the operation of all aircraft in flight over a specified route or any portion of that route, as well as the changeover points (COPs) for Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes as prescribed in part 95.

The specified IFR altitudes, when used in conjunction with the prescribed changeover points for those routes, ensure navigation aid coverage that is adequate for safe flight operations and free of frequency interference. The reasons and circumstances that create the need for this amendment involve matters of flight safety and operational efficiency in the National Airspace System, are related to published aeronautical charts that are essential to the user, and provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. In addition, those various reasons or circumstances require making this amendment effective before the next scheduled charting and publication date of the flight information to assure its timely availability to the user. The effective date of this amendment reflects those considerations. In view of the close and immediate relationship between these regulatory changes and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and that good cause exists for making the amendment effective in less than 30 days.

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

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) is amended as follows effective at 0901 UTC, November 5,2020.

The Bureau of Industry and Security is amending the license review policy for items that have a national security (NS) reason for control ( i.e., pursuant to the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies) when destined to the People's Republic of China (PRC), Venezuela, or the Russian Federation (Russia) (§ 742.4(b)(7)). BIS and reviewing agencies will determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether the proposed export, reexport, or in-country transfer of such items will make a material contribution to the weapons systems capability of those countries. The determination will include an illustrative list of factors that will be considered in reviewing license applications. The illustrative list of factors will provide more guidance to exporters on information to be included with their license applications and assist BIS and reviewing agencies in evaluating those applications. Provisions in other sections of part 742 continue to apply to the review of license applications for the export, reexport, or in-country transfer of NS controlled items to the PRC, Venezuela or Russia. When an export, reexport, or in-country transfer is destined for a civil end user for civil end uses in the PRC, Venezuela, or Russia, there is a presumption of approval. There is a presumption of denial for license applications to export, reexport, or transfer items that would make a material contribution to the “development,” “production,” maintenance, repair, or operation of weapons systems, subsystems, and assemblies.

As required by section 1756(d) of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (50 U.S.C. 4815(d)), the review will also include an assessment of the impact of a proposed export of an item on the United States defense industrial base and the denial of an application for a license that would have a significant negative impact on such defense industrial base.

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) (codified, as amended, at 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.

1. 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, distribute 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 final rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action,” although not economically significant, under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. This final rule will support the national security and foreign policy objectives of the United States by making the license review policy for national security items destined to the PRC, Venezuela, or the Russian Federation more restrictive, as well as clarifying the license review policy by setting forth and making transparent to the public a robust illustrative list of license application review factors for such applications.

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person may be 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 a collection currently approved by OMB under control number 0694-0088, Simplified Network Application Processing System. This collection includes, among other things, license applications, and carries a burden estimate of 42.5 minutes for a manual or electronic submission for a total burden estimate of 31,878 hours. BIS expects that all applicants may spend more time gathering information to include in the license applications to satisfy the newly added license application review factors. However, others will refrain from applying because they either cannot satisfy the newly-added license review criteria or know that their license would be denied because their item would make a `material contribution' to the military capabilities of PRC, Venezuela, or the Russian Federation. Therefore, BIS believes that the added hours for preparing an application will be offset by the decrease in applications and result in no change to the burden hours associated with this collection.

3. This rule does not contain policies with federalism implications as that term is defined under Executive Order 13132.

4. Pursuant to section 1762 of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (50 U.S.C. 4821), which was included in the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, 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.

5. 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.

6. This final rule is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) because it is issued with respect to a national security function of the United States. The cost-benefit analysis required pursuant to Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 indicates that this rule is intended to improve national security as its primary direct benefit. Specifically, setting forth a robust illustrative list of license application review factors and revising the national security license review policy by expanding the meaning of what would be considered a national security threat should increase license outcome predictability and consistency, as well as increase the number of application submissions that include information that satisfies the license application review factors, which should reduce the risk that exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) of items subject to the EAR could be diverted and contribute to the military capability of countries of concern, contrary to U.S. national security interests. Accordingly, this rule meets the requirements set forth in the April 5, 2017 OMB guidance implementing Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017), regarding what constitutes a regulation issued “with respect to a national security function of the United States,” and is, therefore, exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

Accordingly, part 742 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) is amended as follows:

On March 9, 2006, the President signed the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 (CMEA), which is title VII of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-177). The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) published interim final rules (IFRs) on September 26, 2006 (71 FR 56008)—with a technical correction on October 13, 2006 (71 FR 60609)—and April 9, 2007 (72 FR 17401) to implement certain provisions of the CMEA.

On December 30, 2016, DEA published a final rule “Revision of Import and Export Requirements for Controlled Substances, Listed Chemicals, and Tableting and Encapsulating Machines, Including Changes To Implement the International Trade Data System (ITDS); Revision of Reporting Requirements for Domestic Transactions in Listed Chemicals and Tableting and Encapsulating Machines; and Technical Amendments.” 81 FR 96992. This final rule included further amendments to amendments implemented by the September 2006 and April 2007 IFRs.

The CMEA established new requirements for the retail sale of products containing the list I chemicals ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine which may be marketed or distributed lawfully in the United States under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as a nonprescription drug. These products, known under the CMEA as scheduled listed chemical products, can be used to manufacture methamphetamine illegally. To implement those requirements, the September 2006 IFR established daily and 30-day limits on the sales of scheduled listed chemical products to individuals, and established recordkeeping on most retail sales. More detailed information can be found in the preamble to the September 2006 IFR. On October 13, 2006, at 71 FR 6069, a technical correction was published for Table 3 on page 56014 in the September 2006 IFR.

The April 2007 IFR implemented section 716 of the CMEA to require additional reporting for import, export, and international transactions involving all list I and list II chemicals, and in so doing, closed a loophole in the regulatory system. Briefly, section 716 of the CMEA (21 U.S.C. 971 as amended) extends the current reporting requirements—as well as the current exemptions for regular importers and regular customers—to post-import and post-export transactions of list I and list II chemicals. With implementation of this IFR, importers, exporters, brokers, and traders are required to notify DEA, before the transaction is to take place, of certain information regarding their downstream customers. This person is referred to as the “transferee” of the United States importer, exporter, broker, or trader. Notification occurs on a new DEA Form 486. 1 If the transferee changes, or the quantity of the chemical is increased after initial notification to DEA, the importer, exporter, broker, or trader must file an amended DEA Form 486 with DEA. Within 30 days after the importation, exportation, or international transaction is completed, the importer, exporter, broker, or trader must send DEA a return declaration containing information regarding the transaction.

On December 30, 2016, DEA published the ITDS rule. 81 FR 96992. The ITDS rule was scheduled to become effective January 30, 2017. However, the effective date was delayed until March 21, 2017. 82 FR 8688.

The ITDS rule updated DEA's regulations for the import and export of tableting and encapsulating machines, controlled substances, and listed chemicals, and its regulations relating to reports required for domestic transactions in listed chemicals, gammahydroxybutyric acid, and tableting and encapsulating machines. The amendments clarified certain policies, reflected current procedures and technological advancements, and implemented Executive Order (E.O.) 13659 on streamlining the export/import process. The ITDS rule additionally implemented changes to the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act for reexportation of controlled substances among members of the European Economic Area made by the Improving Regulatory Transparency for New Medical Therapies Act (Pub. L. 114-89). The rule also included additional substantive and technical and stylistic amendments.

The ITDS rule included further changes to certain amendments implemented by the September 2006 and April 2007 IFRs. This current final rule does not make any changes to those further amendments.

DEA received 18 comments on the September 2006 IFR. Commenters included trade associations for convenience stores and grocery stores, a law firm, a pharmaceutical organization, a non-pharmaceutical organization, individual pharmacists, and retailers.

Logbooks: Five commenters objected to the requirement for a bound logbook for paper records. One commenter stated that DEA exceeded its authority in requiring that the logbook be bound, because the CMEA includes no such mandate. Other commenters focused on practical problems with bound logbooks. One chain drug store stated that to comply with State requirements to check the logbooks for the past 30 days, it used alphabetical logs that allowed for pages to be inserted. Other commenters stated that available bound logbooks do not meet DEA requirements, and that retailers would have to order customized books at considerable expense or customize blank logbooks by hand. One commenter stated that spiral logbooks should be acceptable if they have page numbers. Other commenters recommended that DEA adopt more flexible requirements. One suggested that DEA only require that the pages of the logbook not be readily removable, altered, or copied without the change being detectable. Another commenter stated that DEA should simply require tamper-evident logs. This commenter stated that DEA had presented no information about why tamper-evident logbooks are important to thwart illegal use of scheduled listed chemical products.

DEA Response: In its regulations implementing the CMEA, DEA required bound logbooks for paper logs because the other types of logbooks suggested can be tampered with simply by removing pages. Tamper-proof paper would prevent alteration of the records, but would not prevent removal of pages. DEA noted that pharmacies are required to maintain bound logbooks for sales of certain schedule V controlled substances. DEA and the CMEA also allowed regulated sellers to maintain logs electronically.

In October 2008, the President signed the Methamphetamine Production Prevention Act of 2008 (MPPA) (Pub. L. 110-415). The MPPA clarified the information entry and signature requirements for electronic logbook systems permitted for the retail sale of scheduled listed chemical products. The MPPA allows regulated sellers to choose between maintaining a written or electronic logbook. For regulated sellers who choose to maintain a written logbook, the MPPA requires that the logbook be bound. 2 However, with respect to electronic logbook systems, the MPPA provides greater flexibility for sellers of scheduled listed chemical products. DEA implemented the provisions of the MPPA in a final rule published December 1, 2011. 76 FR 74696.

Privacy Issues: Five commenters were concerned about the requirements related to protecting information entered into logbooks from exposure. As a practical matter, these commenters focused on paper logs, where previous customer entries may be seen by subsequent purchasers. Commenters asked DEA to define what “accessed” and “shared” mean, and to indicate that “shared” does not mean incidental disclosure to other customers using the same page.

Associations representing retailers stated that DEA should state that the records are not “protected health information” subject to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). One commenter noted that States have decided that the logs are not HIPAA protected. Another commenter stated that the log information is not sensitive; customers have been purchasing these products off the shelves for years without any expectation of privacy. The products can be used for a number of conditions and, therefore, reveal little about the purchaser's condition. This commenter also stated that limiting the log to a single entry per page would be expensive. An organization representing pharmacists stated that the logs should be considered subject to HIPAA and that customers should see only their own information.

One retailer asked DEA to clarify what methods are acceptable to prevent other customers from seeing the information. One pharmacist stated that requesting a form of identification and entering data into the log was an invasion of privacy. Two pharmacists noted that the process is time consuming.

DEA Response: The CMEA provides requirements regarding the protection of logbook information. In regard to the disclosure of collected information, the CMEA established restrictions on disclosure of information in logbooks to protect the privacy of individuals who purchase scheduled listed chemical products. 21 U.S.C. 830(e)(1)(C).

The logbook privacy protections set forth by the CMEA are implemented by DEA to closely resemble the language in the CMEA. 3 By adopting the statutory language regarding protection of logbooks in the regulations virtually without change, DEA has provided regulated sellers the greatest flexibility possible to ensure that customer information is protected, without dictating specific requirements.

The United States Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Civil Rights enforces HIPAA, 4 and it is the responsibility of covered entities (including pharmacies) to ensure that all aspects of their business practices are HIPAA compliant. 5 The covered entity is responsible for adequate safeguards and policies to ensure that protected health information in logbooks is not disclosed. DEA is not responsible for ensuring that such entities have the necessary safeguards in place to ensure that protected health information is not disclosed. DEA does not have authority to enforce HIPAA. However, 21 CFR 1314.45 provides privacy protections to purchasers of scheduled listed chemical products by restricting the disclosure of information collected in logbooks. Scheduled listed chemical products are sold in a wide variety of settings, from large retail chains where information is captured at general checkout lines to small pharmacies where information is captured at the pharmacy counter. To define the terms “access” and “share” in relation to logbook information could unnecessarily and adversely impact the sales of scheduled listed chemical products by regulated sellers.

Although the process requires additional time, the CMEA required that the purchaser sign the logbook, enter the purchaser's name and address, the date and time of sale, and that the regulated seller enter the name and quantity of the product sold. The CMEA further required that the regulated seller determine that the name on the identification presented by the purchaser corresponds to the name entered by the purchaser in the logbook. DEA had no discretion in the implementation of these requirements.

Other Logbook Issues: One association stated that the log entry requirements should be more flexible. Other than the signature, the commenter believed that DEA should not specify who has to enter the other data. The commenter suggested that stickers could be used to identify the product information other than the number of containers. Another retail association stated that DEA should allow others to enter the data when the purchaser is unable to do so ( e.g., because of a disability).

DEA Response: The CMEA required that the purchaser enter certain specific information as specified in 21 U.S.C. 830(e). DEA implemented those provisions in the September 2006 IFR. DEA sought to balance its statutory obligations while recognizing that with electronic logbooks, it may be difficult or impossible for some purchasers to enter the required information. To ensure that all persons were able to purchase scheduled listed chemical products at retail, DEA made an allowance at 21 CFR 1314.30(c) that if the purchaser were feasibly unable to do so, the regulated seller may ask for and enter the information electronically. This is similar to the regulated seller entering the information when the information must be entered into an electronic system that is not easily accessible to the customer.

Subsequent to DEA's implementation of the CMEA, the MPPA was passed, revising the information entry and signature requirements for electronic logbook systems permitted for the retail sale of scheduled listed chemical products. The MPPA allows for flexibility with its provisions relating to log entry requirements. Under the MPPA, regulated sellers of scheduled listed chemical products may choose from several options relating to how purchaser signatures may be obtained and how transactions may be recorded. 21 U.S.C. 830(e)(1)(A)(iv). DEA published a final rule on December 1, 2011, which implemented the MPPA. 76 FR 74696.

Federal/State Issues: Several commenters raised issues related to different Federal and State laws related to retail sales of scheduled listed chemical products. One association asked DEA to provide guidance on how to reconcile conflicting requirements on logbooks. The commenter asked whether a regulated seller would have to maintain two separate logbooks if State law requires different information than Federal law. Another association stated that DEA should allow the use of a single logbook to capture information for both requirements. The association asked DEA to provide a State-by-State analysis to let regulated sellers know which provisions apply in each State. Another association stated that compliance with a State rule that is as stringent or more stringent than DEA's should satisfy DEA's requirements. One chain pharmacy stated that DEA should allow electronic capture of State information and manual capture of additional DEA elements rather than require two separate sets of logs.

DEA Response: Regulated sellers may use a single logbook for capturing Federal and State requirements provided that the data entered includes all of the elements required under the CMEA. If the data required by Federal law and State law is so markedly different that it cannot be merged easily, or if regulated sellers wish to do so for other reasons, regulated sellers may also use separate systems. If a State's requirements include all of the CMEA's requirements, a separate logbook need not be created. DEA, however, does not have the authority to alter the CMEA requirements.

Warning Notice: The CMEA requires that regulated sellers post a warning notice to inform customers that providing false information is a violation of Federal law. One commenter stated that DEA should recognize that any of the following meets the requirements for providing notice: Displaying the notice under glass near the logbook; putting it on the wall behind the logbook; or putting it on the cover of the logbook. The commenter also recommended that DEA allow mandated State notices to replace the Federal notice, because multiple warning notices can be confusing to the customer.

DEA Response: The CMEA mandated the warning notice; a State notice cannot substitute for the statutorily required warning that entering false statements or misrepresentations is a violation of Federal law. The regulation for placement of the notice provides regulated sellers with flexibility on placement of the notice. The only requirement is that the notice either be included in the written or electronic logbook, or displayed by the logbook. 21 CFR 1314.30(d).

Photographic Identification: One association stated that DEA should clarify that regulated sellers are only required to check the photographic identification to ensure that the name entered into the log is the same as the name on the identification and that the date and time are correct. In addition, the association claimed that the CMEA does not require a regulated seller to refuse to sell the product if the name is not correct. The commenter noted that there may be legitimate reasons for discrepancies ( e.g., such as name or address change since the issuance of the identification). In addition, clerks could be at risk if they challenged a customer.

DEA Response: The CMEA required that the regulated seller determine that the name entered into the logbook matches the name on the identification presented. The prospective purchaser must provide an appropriate identification card and signature and the seller must confirm the identification provided matches the information entered into the logbook. 6

DEA recognizes that there will be times when names listed on an identification may not correspond to information entered into logbooks, due to marriage, name change, etc. However, DEA emphasizes that regulated sellers are required to comply with the CMEA, including not selling a product to customers if the name the customer entered into the logbook does not match the identification presented.

The MPPA amended section 310(e)(1)(A) of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 830(e)(1)(A)) to provide flexibility in the creation and maintenance of electronic logbooks, while retaining the CMEA's basic requirement that the regulated seller determine that the name entered into the logbook matches the name on the identification presented: In the case of a sale to which the [logbook requirement] applies, the seller does not sell such a product unless the sale is made in accordance with the following: The logbook maintained by the seller includes the prospective purchaser's name, address, and the date and time of the sale, as follows:

If the purchaser enters the information, the seller must determine that the name entered in the logbook corresponds to the name provided on such identification. If the seller enters the information, the prospective purchaser must verify that the information is correct. 7

Identification for Mail-Order Distributors: An internet pharmacy stated that requiring a photographic identification for mail-order sales was not helpful. The retailer collects the purchaser's name, credit card name, billing address, shipping address, and email address. The retailer is not in a position to verify the photographic identification. In addition, a copy of a photographic identification can be manipulated to change information. The commenter believed that the requirement is an unreasonable burden on the consumer that does little to prevent illicit sales.

DEA Response: The CMEA intends for the retailer to verify the identity of the customer, whether that retailer is a regulated seller or a mail-order distributor. For regulated sellers, the CMEA was clear and specific in its requirements. 8 The purchaser is required to present a photographic identification or other permissible form of identification. 21 U.S.C. 830(e)(1)(A)(iv)(I)(aa). The regulated seller must then “determine that the name entered in the logbook corresponds to the name provided on such identification . . .” 21 U.S.C. 830(e)(1)(A)(iv)(III)(aa). 9

Mail-order distributors are no less regulated. While mail-order distributors do not conduct face-to-face transactions, they still need to confirm purchaser identity. The CMEA states that mail-order distributors “shall, prior to shipping the product, confirm the identity of the purchaser in accordance with procedures established by the Attorney General.” 21 U.S.C. 830(e)(2)(A). In its regulations implementing the CMEA, DEA interpreted the requirement to “confirm the identity of the purchaser” to mean that mail-order distributors must “receive from the purchaser a copy” of a photographic identification or other permissible form of identification. 21 CFR 1314.105(a).

The requirement that mail-order distributors receive a copy of the purchaser's photographic identification is perhaps even more important due to the anonymity of the transactions. Providing a copy of a photographic identification issued by a Federal or the State government, or a copy of another document permissible for identification purposes, lends credence to the name and address given by phone, fax, or internet during the order process. It is no more unreasonable to require the mail-order distributor to compare the name and address on the identification with the name and address given on the order, than it is for a regulated seller to compare the information presented by the purchaser with the information entered into the logbook as part of the face-to-face transaction.

Daily and 30-day Limits: Two commenters raised questions about the daily and 30-day limits set in the CMEA. Both stated that DEA should include the CMEA language to clarify that retailers are not expected to check the logbooks to determine if a customer is exceeding the daily or 30-day limits. One of the commenters stated that the 30-day limit applies only to the purchaser, not the retailer. The same commenter stated that DEA should waive the 30-day and daily limits for mail-order sales if the retailer has a system in place to prevent a customer from exceeding the CMEA limits in a year with monthly reports to DEA. This commenter also recommended that the daily limit should be a calendar day, not any 24-hour period.

DEA Response: DEA has not included the language from the statute because it is part of the penalty provisions, which are not included in the regulations. DEA has no authority to waive the requirements for mail-order distributors, including the daily and 30-day sales limits, regardless of any steps the mail-order distributor chooses to take regarding sales of scheduled listed chemical products. Finally, as discussed in the September 2006 IFR, DEA has set the 24-hour period as a calendar day.

Certification: Four associations commented on the self-certification process. Two supported the annual certification versus a more frequent process. One association noted that turnover of staff was about 130 percent a year; updating the certification for each new staff would be unnecessarily burdensome. One association suggested allowing small rural stores to submit certifications through state associations. Another association asked that companies with many stores be allowed to select a single renewal date so that the stores are not recertifying at different times. One association asked DEA to clarify whether chains had the option to certify stores individually or in batches. One association noted that many small businesses do not have computers or internet access, making the web-based certification a burden for them.

DEA Response: The self-certification requires that the regulated seller attest to the truthfulness of its certification; the regulated seller is liable for misstatements. Therefore, DEA cannot allow third-party associations to file the certification statements on behalf of regulated sellers. Chain stores, however, may file on behalf of their individual store locations. If a chain batch files for its stores, they will all have the same recertification date. Where regulated sellers self-certifying with DEA pursuant to the CMEA are also DEA registrants, DEA has worked to ensure that the certification expires in the same month, but not necessarily the same year, as DEA registration. DEA will continue to handle the certification process through the internet. Even a small business owner will have a way to access the internet through a business, home, or public computer.

Certification Signer: One retailer stated that the location manager was the appropriate person to sign the certification on behalf of the regulated seller. An association stated that DEA should revise its certification website, which includes the controlled substance rules for who is allowed to sign a registration. The commenter also recommended that a person should be allowed to sign if the person is in a position to certify that the particular location is in compliance with the requirements of the CMEA. Another association stated that DEA should clarify the level of knowledge the signer needs and provide flexibility on who is authorized to sign. Another commenter stated that the rule language regarding the person allowed to sign should be “on behalf of the regulated person or distributor” not the “regulated seller,” which is narrower.

DEA Response: DEA appreciates the comments regarding who should sign the certification on behalf of the regulated seller. Regarding the regulatory language, only regulated sellers, not regulated persons, were required to self-certify under the CMEA. The regulatory text is correct as written. In its rule implementing the Combat Methamphetamine Enhancement Act of 2010 (CMEA) (Pub. L. 111-268), DEA amended the CFR to include three new sections pertaining to mail-order sales (1314.101, 1314.102, and 1314.103) which included the phrase “regulated person.” 76 FR 20518.

Certification Fee: Three commenters opposed a fee for certification. One pharmacist stated that pharmacies would not carry the products if they had to pay a fee. An association stated that a fee would disproportionately affect small businesses and sole proprietors, which operate on small margins. Another association objected to paying DEA to file information that DEA requires them to file.

DEA Response: DEA appreciates these comments. DEA published a final rule establishing self-certification fees for regulated sellers selling scheduled listed chemical products at retail on December 29, 2008 (73 FR 79318). In that rulemaking, DEA waived the self-certification fee for persons holding a current, valid DEA registration as a pharmacy to dispense controlled substances, and established a $21 self-certification fee for regulated sellers of scheduled listed chemical products that are not DEA pharmacy registrants. In the final rule, DEA certified that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities whose interests must be considered under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA).

Training: Three associations raised issues related to employee training. Two indicated that DEA training material does not recognize that not all employees require training; only those who handle the product do. The commenter noted that in some stores, the information is collected at one location; the checkout clerk merely takes the payment. The commenter believed the current training is confusing. One association stated that the training implies, improperly, that the regulated seller must check the logs for daily and 30-day limits, which the CMEA does not require. The commenter also asked DEA to remove the reference to phenylpropanolamine, which is not sold at retail as an over-the-counter drug. Another association claimed the training material needs to be revised to state that the limits apply to ephedrine and pseudoephedrine base, not to the product. An association stated that DEA should scale back the training record requirements. The commenter indicated that the CMEA does not require that all records be maintained or that employees sign an acknowledgement of training, let alone that the signed acknowledgement be maintained in the personnel record.

DEA Response: DEA appreciates the comments on the training content. DEA believes that no changes are needed to the training and the training content, as written, is necessary to ensure that employees of regulated sellers are properly trained to meet the requirements of the CMEA. In addition, DEA does not believe that the discussion of phenylpropanolamine should be removed from the training as it is a chemical covered by the CMEA. The training content provided by DEA has been utilized by industry for over 10 years. Furthermore, to reiterate CMEA requirements, all persons who either are responsible for delivering scheduled listed chemical products into the custody of purchasers or who deal directly with purchasers by obtaining payments for the products must receive training regarding the requirements of the CMEA. 21 U.S.C. 830(e)(1)(A)(vii). Regulated sellers are required to use training provided by DEA, but may augment that training with their own information if they so choose. DEA disagrees that sellers do not need to retain records of the training. Without such records, the regulated seller would not be able to document, for itself or for law enforcement that the regulated seller had complied with the rule and the CMEA by training its employees.

Availability: Two pharmacists claimed that the rule had impeded access to customers with legitimate needs. The commenters believed that most stores are not informing customers of behind-the-counter availability. One pharmacist stated that the substitutes were inferior with more side effects. The commenter claimed that the rule has not reduced illicit methamphetamine production given the internet and other sources of the products. One individual stated that distributors are limiting the products they supply. One pharmacy customer had asked the pharmacy for a prescription for a nonprescription product; another pharmacy refused to carry them because of the logbook hassle. The commenter asked DEA to require pharmacies and distributors to provide the products.

DEA Response: DEA has no authority to require regulated sellers or distributors to carry products or to require stores to inform customers of product availability.

Costs: One chain pharmacy stated that compliance had cost it $2.4 million to move products behind-the-counter, change signage, train workers, and print logs. An association stated that stores would need to train more than two people a year. The commenter noted that estimates of space costs ignored the limited availability of such space. The commenter noted that States require retailers to store cigarettes and lottery tickets behind the counter. Many stores have marketing and display agreements with cigarette companies. The commenter claimed that DEA rule can hurt store sales and marketing revenues. In addition, over-the-counter sales of the products spur impulse purchases of other products so that, even if the products are a small percentage of sales, loss of these sales will have a considerable impact on in-store sales. Another association stated that the rule would affect a substantial number of small entities, which have fewer resources to devote to compliance.

One commenter raised issues related to the cost of complying with the CMEA requirements, such as training, store reconfigurations, and logbooks, and estimated the total cost of implementation to be approximately $2.26 million for a large chain pharmacy and almost $600,000 for a medium-sized pharmacy chain. Another commenter stated that DEA's assumptions and estimates regarding annual certification and employee training, as well as for behind-the-counter storage and its effect on impulse purchases, were inadequate.

DEA Response: While the placement of these products behind-the-counter may displace some items, it opens up space on the counter and shelves for others. Similarly, while some purchasers of these products may then decide to purchase other products, the reverse is also true; for some purchasers, these would be the impulse purchases. Finally, DEA recognized the impact on small entities, but the CMEA provided no discretion to apply different rules to small businesses.

DEA has no authority to alter the behind-the-counter requirement. DEA also notes that the costs mentioned by these commenters are generalized and actual costs are unknown. For these reasons, DEA continues to believe that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and has certified accordingly pursuant to the RFA, referenced below.

Other Issues: One association stated that DEA should add provisions to the rule to clarify that all retail sellers, not just registrants, are subject to the rule. The association also asked for explicit rule language to specify that prescription products are not subject to the rule.

DEA Response: The rule is already clear on both these points. The CSA, as amended by the CMEA, defines a “scheduled listed chemical product” in part as “a product that may be marketed or distributed lawfully in the United States under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as a nonprescription drug.” 21 U.S.C. 802(45)(A)(ii); 21 CFR 1300.02. Thus, DEA believes no further clarification is necessary. Nothing in the definitions of “regulated seller” (21 U.S.C. 802(46)) or “retail distributor” (21 U.S.C. 802(49)), upon which the definition of regulated seller is based, discusses or stipulates requirements regarding registration. Again, DEA does not believe that further clarification is warranted.

Definition of “unusual or excessive loss.” One commenter asked for a definition of “unusual or excessive loss.” The commenter stated that DEA should suspend enforcement until it has clarified loss reporting in another rule.

DEA Response: DEA regulation at 21 CFR 1314.15(a) does not define unusual or excessive loss. The phrase applies to a wide range of regulated persons, from small stores, to large-scale distributors, to manufacturers. The definition of unusual and excessive loss will vary too much to develop a single standard or definition applicable to a wide range of regulated persons.

Definition of retail distributor: One commenter stated that the definition of retail distributor as codified in the regulations should include ephedrine, as it does in the CSA.

DEA Response: DEA appreciates the commenter noting this inconsistency. The CSA definition of “retail distributor,” as amended by the CMEA, does include ephedrine. 10 The September 2006 IFR revised the definition of “retail distributor” at 21 CFR 1300.02(b)(29) to conform with the CMEA provision; however, this regulatory definition inadvertently omitted “ephedrine.” In January 2012, DEA issued a technical amendments rule which removed the numbers for each definition in 21 CFR 1300.02(b). 77 FR 4228. This final rule revises the definition of “retail distributor” at 21 CFR 1300.02(b) to include ephedrine.

Lack of notice and comment: An internet retailer objected to the lack of notice and comment. The commenter stated that Congress did not intend to require photographic identification of purchasers for mail-order, so the rule was not an extension of Congressional intent. The commenter believed that notice and comment would also have given retailers time to prepare for compliance; the commenter indicated that the requirement for photographic identification requires software and process changes that take time. The commenter believed that it is unfair to the company and consumers to make this change without comment. Another commenter noted that the IFR was published only four days before the compliance date, which did not give sellers time to comply.

DEA Response: In regards to mail-orders, the CMEA requires the purchaser to present a Federal or State government issued identification card that provides a photograph or a document that with respect to identification is considered acceptable pursuant to 8 CFR 274a.2(b)(1)(v)(A) and 274a.2(b)(1)(v)(B). The regulated person must verify that the name and address on the identification correspond to the information provided by the purchaser. DEA had a very limited period to conform its regulations to the CMEA requirements; the law was signed March 9, 2006, with a statutory deadline of September 30, 2006. The requirements of the CMEA would have gone into effect regardless of the regulations. If DEA had not published regulations when it did, procedures would not have been in place permitting persons to self-certify; thus, persons could not have legally sold scheduled listed chemical products at retail. Consequently, there was no time to seek comment prior to the CMEA deadlines, nor would comments have altered the requirements that the CMEA established. DEA conducted outreach activities to inform industry of the statutory requirements prior to the rulemaking, so they had time to come into compliance by the statutory deadlines.

Limitation of sales: One commenter suggested that sales be limited to pharmacies; internet sales should be banned. Another commenter stated that DEA should control distributors. One asked if liquids could be used to make methamphetamine illicitly and suggested that if they cannot, sales should be limited to liquids. One pharmacist suggested that scheduled listed chemical products be listed as controlled substances.

DEA Response: The CMEA did not provide DEA authority to limit sales of scheduled listed chemical products to pharmacies. DEA already regulates distributors of scheduled listed chemical products as, prior to their retail sale, they are considered list I chemicals. As DEA has discussed in other rulemakings regarding implementation of the CMEA, 11 liquid forms of scheduled listed chemical products can be used to manufacture methamphetamine illicitly, which is why Congress included all forms under the CMEA requirements. Congress did not choose to place scheduled listed chemical products in the schedules of controlled substances.

Small businesses: One commenter representing small to midsize businesses that engage in the manufacture, distribution, and sales of scheduled listed chemical products and other over-the-counter pharmaceuticals, stated that implementation of the CMEA will have a significant impact on small business. The commenter noted that small enterprises have fewer financial and material resources than their larger counterparts, thus making compliance a more expensive business expense, and that hundreds of thousands of small retailers, and their distributors, will be impacted.

DEA Response: Although DEA agrees with the commenter that the rule affects a substantial number of small entities, for the reasons previously discussed, DEA continues to believe that the rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and has certified accordingly pursuant to the RFA, referenced below.

DEA received comments from the regulated industry requesting the delay of the effective date of the rulemaking to allow industry more time to fully comply with the new provisions. The rule originally became effective on May 9, 2007. However, after careful consideration of the comments received, DEA temporarily stayed the provisions of the IFR by 30 days, from May 9, 2007 to June 8, 2007. 72 FR 28601, May 22, 2007.

DEA received five substantive comments on the IFR. Commenters included chemical manufacturers and distributors and national associations representing manufacturers of chemicals and flavorings and fragrances. DEA has determined that no changes are necessary to the rule as implemented as a result of the comments received. Therefore this final rule finalizes the IFR without change. The following discussion summarizes the issues raised by commenters and DEA's response to these issues.

One commenter disagreed with DEA's requirement that the transferee be identified before the import or export can take place. This commenter agreed that, while it is clear that Congress intended that the transferee be identified before a transfer to a new customer takes place, the CMEA does not require the transferee be identified before an import or export can take place.

DEA Response: DEA disagrees with the commenter's interpretation of new section 716. Section 716 of the CMEA amended 21 U.S.C. 971 by adding a new subsection (d)(1)(A) which states that “[i]nformation provided in a notice under subsection (a) or (b) shall include the name of the person to whom the importer or exporter involved intends to transfer the listed chemical involved, and the quantity of such chemical to be transferred.” Paragraph (a) of section 971 requires each regulated person who imports or exports a listed chemical to notify the Attorney General of the importation or exportation not later than 15 days before the transaction is to take place. Paragraph (b)(1) of section 971 requires the regulated person to notify the Attorney General of an importation by a regular importer or an exportation to a regular customer at the time the transaction is to take place. Thus, paragraph (d)(1)(A) requires the identification of the transferee at the time of the provision of DEA Form 486 to DEA.

Three commenters objected to the lack of opportunity to comment on procedures before the IFR was issued and on the 30-day effective date imposed by the IFR, stating that it would not allow industry enough time to thoroughly review the new requirements, seek clarification regarding unclear provisions, and implement procedures to comply with the new requirements. One commenter indicated that it needed additional time to modify its computer programming logic to accommodate the revisions to DEA Form 486. One commenter believed that DEA's failure to conduct notice and comment rulemaking violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Two commenters requested a 90-day extension to the effective date to allow the industry more time to come into compliance with the new rules.

DEA Response: After careful consideration of the concerns expressed by these commenters, DEA temporarily stayed certain provisions of the IFR published April 9, 2007. The temporary stay of certain provisions was published May 22, 2007 (72 FR 28601). Specifically, DEA temporarily stayed the following provisions:

• The waiver of the 15-day advance notification requirement for importations of a listed chemical for which the importer intends to transfer the listed chemical to a person who is a regular customer of the chemical;

• The requirement that importers, exporters, brokers, and traders notify DEA of the transferee of the listed chemical;

• The requirement that importers, exporters, brokers, and traders amend DEA Form 486 if the transferee changes or the quantity of the chemical to be transferred increases; and

• The requirement that importers, exporters, brokers, and traders file return declarations regarding importations, exportations, and international transactions with DEA.

These provisions were already in effect because of their inclusion in the CMEA; however, their implementation was temporarily stayed until June 8, 2007. The temporary stay applied only to those provisions implemented by section 716 of the CMEA. All other provisions regarding the importation, exportation, and international transactions involving list I and list II chemicals remained in full force and effect.

DEA did not conduct a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) with an opportunity for comment because the CMEA set forth the provisions in such detail as to be self-implementing and gave no discretion in its implementation. DEA is merely codifying the statutory provisions. Also, Congress was clear in its intent that these provisions be implemented quickly, which precluded full notice and comment rulemaking. DEA did seek comments in the IFR and is responding to these comments in this Final Rule.

With respect to the commenter's allegation that DEA violated the notice and comment requirement of the APA, DEA notes that it provided an extensive discussion of the “good cause” exception to this requirement in its April 2007 IFR. DEA acknowledged that the good cause exception to the APA's notice and comment procedures is to be “narrowly construed and only reluctantly countenanced.” 72 FR 17405. DEA reiterates its position that because the CMEA's provisions regarding additional reporting for import, export, and international transactions involving list I and list II chemicals were so specific, DEA had no discretion in their implementation. DEA merely codified in its regulations that which had been explicitly required by Congress in section 716 of the CMEA. DEA believes that its use of the good cause exception to the APA's notice and comment requirements was entirely appropriate in this case.

Three commenters stated that the IFR did not address the situation where, at the time of import or export, the importer or exporter does not intend to transfer the listed chemical to any person. Instead, the importer or exporter intends to transfer it to themselves either for stock purposes or for later distribution to transferees (downstream customers) that will be identified. One commenter described its (first in, first out) method of handling inventory and requested clarification on whether it can continue to follow that practice, since the exact material imported for a particular customer may not always be distributed to that customer. Another commenter speculated that DEA intended that the importer could list as the transferee another legal entity or listed chemical business activity. In this case importers could list their own manufacturer or distributor registration information. Another commenter suggested that, at the time of import or export of listed chemicals, if a transferee (downstream customer) has not been identified, DEA Form 486 space for transferee should be completed with the name of the importer. This would reflect the importer's intention to hold the listed chemicals in inventory. When the importer, exporter, broker, or trader later identifies a proposed transferee, then they must file an amended DEA Form 486 reporting the name of the person to whom the importer or exporter involved intends to transfer the listed chemical, and the quantity of such chemical to be transferred. Commenters requested that DEA clarify precisely when and how the identity of the transferee (downstream customer) must be provided if it is not known at the time of import.

DEA Response: The CMEA is clear in its plain language. As discussed above, at the time the advance notification (DEA Form 486) is provided to DEA, the importer, exporter, broker, or trader “shall include the name of the person to whom the importer or exporter involved intends to transfer the listed chemical involved, and the quantity of such chemical to be transferred.” DEA cannot change this requirement. However, DEA notes that the importer or exporter can change the name of the transferee included on DEA Form 486 simply by submitting an amended DEA Form 486 to DEA. For exports, a chemical may be exported from a United States facility of a company to a foreign facility of the same company; in that instance, the foreign facility is the transferee of the export. For imports, the importer may not list its own name as the transferee; however, it may list the name of an affiliated manufacturer, or its own manufacturing facility if it holds a separate registration as a manufacturer, who will process, repackage, or relabel the listed chemical. This is because an importer is permitted to distribute that which it imports, but is not permitted to distribute a chemical which it imported but which has been processed, packaged, labeled, repackaged, or relabeled, subsequent to import. Those activities are defined by the CSA as manufacturing activities (21 U.S.C. 802(15)) and such manufacturing activities may only be carried out by a DEA-registered manufacturer.

DEA recognizes that the exact material imported for a particular customer may not always be distributed to that customer. For example, DEA does not expect an importer to empty a large vat of liquid chemicals based on the order in which DEA Forms 486 were submitted to DEA. DEA would also not expect an importer to segment chemicals stored in its warehouse based on the specific transferee designated on a particular DEA Form 486. So long as all chemicals imported are accounted for in terms of importation and distribution to transferees, this satisfies the requirements of the CMEA.

A related issue raised by two commenters addressed how to handle a return of a product exported to a foreign customer. One of the commenters asked how the supplier (the original exporter), who is now an importer, is to deal with the reporting of the transfer. The commenter noted that in circumstances involving returns, the disposition of the goods may not be decided until they are received back into the supplier's inventories.

DEA Response: In DEA's experience, the return of a product exported to a foreign customer is not a routine occurrence; however, when such instances arise, the return of such products will be treated as imports. Like with all imports, DEA Form 486 must be filed in compliance with DEA regulations. DEA further notes that this issue is not specific to implementation of the CMEA.

A commenter requested clarification about a situation where a United States company imports listed chemicals for the purpose of export. This commenter asked whether it could list a foreign customer as the transferee on an import declaration.

DEA Response: The importation and exportation of the listed chemical are separate transactions conducted under separate DEA registrations. If a United States importer imports a listed chemical for exportation, the United States importer submits to DEA a DEA Form 486 providing information concerning the United States exporter, the United States importer's transferee of the listed chemical. For the United States exporter, the transferee is the foreign importer. The United States exporter submits a separate DEA Form 486 providing information regarding the exportation. Both the importation and exportation of the listed chemical require the subsequent submission of return declarations for each transaction. Note that the requirement to submit separate DEA Forms 486 for the importation and exportation of the listed chemical has not been affected by the CMEA.

One commenter stated that, under the rule, for a customer to obtain regular customer status, they must have an established business relationship for a specified listed chemical or chemicals that has been reported to DEA. The commenter believed that if it has transferred a regulated transaction either once in six months or twice in a year and the transfer has been reported to DEA, no matter what the chemical class, the 15-day advance notice should be able to be waived. If this were not the case, the commenter believed that its delivery time to its customers would be negatively impacted.

DEA Response: The requirement that an importer or exporter must establish a business relationship with a customer on a chemical-by-chemical basis to obtain regular customer status was not changed by the CMEA or the IFR. DEA views not only each customer independently, but also each chemical. There may be cases where a regular customer for one chemical may not be approved as a regular customer for a different chemical.

Another commenter requested that DEA clarify whether the 15-day advance notification requirement applies to the transfer of a listed chemical to regular customers in quantities greater than that indicated on the original form. The commenter believed that it is clear that the notice applies to new customers in this case. The commenter noted that as the transfer of quantities less than that originally reported can be transferred to regular customers without advance notification to DEA, and only needs to be reported on the return declaration, inventory may exist that will allow an importer to transfer a greater quantity than originally indicated to regular customers.

DEA Response: Notification is required for the transfer of a listed chemical to regular customers in quantities greater than that indicated on the original form; however, the notice need not be sent 15 days in advance if the regular customer status has been established. Section 971(d)(1)(C) states that after a notice under subsection (a) or (b) is submitted to the Attorney General, if circumstances change and the importer or exporter . . . will be transferring a greater quantity of the chemical than specified in the notice, the importer or exporter shall update the notice to identify . . . the most recent quantity . . . and may not transfer the listed chemical until after the expiration of the 15-day period beginning on the date on which the update is submitted to the Attorney General, except that such 15-day restriction does not apply if the prospective transferee identified in the update is a regular customer.

One commenter requested clarification regarding the waiver of the 15-day advance notification requirement for regular importers and regular customers with respect to the listed chemicals ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. Section 1313.12 of the IFR states that the 15-day advance notification can be waived for a regulated person who has qualified as a regular importer if the listed chemical is transferred to a regular customer. The commenter noted that in 1995 DEA disqualified regular importer status for the listed chemicals ephedrine and pseudoephedrine; all imports of these chemicals have been subject to the advance 15-day notification requirement. The commenter requested that DEA confirm whether this disqualification would still be in effect after the implementation of the IFR.

DEA Response: The disqualification of regular importer status for ephedrine and pseudoephedrine remains in effect. DEA sent out a separate notice to all DEA-registered importers reiterating the disqualification of regular importer and regular customer status for all importations of the list I chemicals ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine and drug products containing those three list I chemicals in May 2007. This notice stated that the disqualification from regular importer and regular customer status of the United States importer and its transferees is necessary to enforce the provisions of the CMEA. The CMEA places stringent controls on the importation, manufacture, and retail sale of the list I chemicals ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine because these chemicals—and drug products containing them—are used domestically to illicitly manufacture methamphetamine and amphetamine, both schedule II controlled substances.

One commenter requested clarification on how §§ 1313.15 and 1313.08 would apply to future imports. To eliminate the 15-day waiting period on all future imports, the commenter requested that it be able to submit transferee information to allow for the 15-day advance notice to be waived on future imports.

DEA Response: Importers, exporters, brokers, and traders must follow DEA notification requirements for each planned import, export, or international transaction, so that DEA can closely monitor imports, exports, and international transactions of listed chemicals that may be used in the illicit manufacture of controlled substances. The submission of transferee information not affiliated with a specific importation, exportation, or international transaction is not permitted and does not negate any advance notification requirements in effect for the transferee.

One commenter supported the change of return paperwork responsibility being transferred from United States Customs and Border Protection to the exporter or importer; however, another commenter requested clarification of this change to the procedures for distributing the form. Another commenter noted that the instructions for DEA Form 486 state that Copy 3 of the export declaration must be returned to DEA, while § 1313.23(c) states that “Copy 3 shall be presented to the U.S. Customs Service.”

Two commenters requested clarification of the requirements for DEA Form 486 when a planned importation or exportation does not take place. Sections 1313.17 and 1313.27 state that an amended DEA Form 486 must be filed, but one commenter suggested that the form should be “withdrawn” and that §§ 1313.17 and 1313.27 should be amended accordingly.

DEA Response: The distribution requirements for DEA Form 486 have not changed and the importer/exporter must send an original copy of DEA Form 486 to the U.S. Customs Service. This has been corrected in the instructions for DEA Form 486. The change is that the U.S. Customs Service no longer has to certify what is being imported or exported. The new return declarations serve as this certification.

Regarding the commenters seeking clarification on DEA Form 486, DEA considers any change to a previously submitted form an “amendment” whether specific information is being amended in the form or the form is being withdrawn. When a planned importation or exportation does not take place, the importer or exporter must submit an amended DEA Form 486, marked “withdrawn” in the fields provided for that purpose on the form.

One commenter asked how the new requirements apply to international transactions, i.e., shipments from a United States-based company's facilities in a foreign country to a customer within that country or in a different foreign country. Similarly, the commenter asked whether shipping a product from the United States to a foreign entity of the same company would trigger the requirement to submit a DEA Form 486.

DEA Response: The definition of “international transaction” did not change with enactment of the CMEA. The CSA defines an international transaction as follows: “The term `international transaction' means a transaction involving the shipment of a listed chemical across an international border (other than a United States border) in which a broker or trader located in the United States participates.” 21 U.S.C. 802(42). DEA has never regulated the shipment of listed chemicals from a United States-based company's foreign facilities to other entities within the country in which the United States-based company's foreign facility is located. If, however, any foreign entity ships a listed chemical from one foreign country to another foreign country, and that transaction is arranged by a United States broker or trader, the CSA and its implementing regulations apply for purposes of international transactions. As noted previously, shipping a product from the United States to a foreign entity of the same company is an export and must be handled as such.

This final rule adopts the September 2006 IFR, with one technical change, and the April 2007 IFR, without change, as amended by the ITDS rule. The technical amendment to the September 2006 IFR involves the definition of the term “retail distributor.” The definition of “retail distributor” in 21 CFR 1300.02(b) is being amended to include ephedrine so that it will mirror the definition of “retail distributor” found in the CSA at 21 U.S.C. 802(49)(A). The September 2006 IFR inadvertently omitted ephedrine from the definition of “retail distributor.”

This final rule, with one change to the September 2006 IFR, and without change to the April 2007 IFR, affirms the amendments made by both IFRs that are already in effect. The APA generally requires that agencies, prior to issuing a new rule, publish an NPRM in the Federal Register . The APA also provides, however, that agencies may be excepted from this requirement when “the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefore in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

As discussed in the September 2006 and April 2007 IFRs, DEA invoked this “good cause” exception to the APA's notice and comment requirements. For the September 2006 IFR, DEA determined that public notice and comment were impracticable and contrary to the public interest. As for the April 2007 IFR, DEA determined that public notice and comment were unnecessary and impracticable. With the publication of this final rule, DEA is making a technical amendment to the definition of the term “retail distributor.” The definition of “retail distributor” in 21 CFR 1300.02(b), which was set forth in the September 2006 IFR, is being amended to include ephedrine so that it will mirror the definition of “retail distributor” found in the CSA at 21 U.S.C. 802(49)(A). The CMEA set forth this definition in such detail as to be self-implementing. As explained above in section II, DEA inadvertently omitted ephedrine when it set forth the definition of “retail distributor” in the September 2006 IFR. As this definition is already in effect, DEA finds that notice and opportunity for comment for this technical amendment are unnecessary under the APA (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

The RFA (5 U.S.C. 601-612) applies to rules that are subject to notice and comment under section 553(b) of the APA. As noted in the above discussion regarding the applicability of the APA, DEA was not required to publish a general NPRM prior to this final rule for either the September 2006 IFR or the April 2007 IFR. Consequently, the RFA does not apply.

Furthermore, in the September 2006 IFR, although the RFA was determined to not apply, DEA reviewed the potential impacts of the IFR. The IFR was estimated to affect a substantial number of small entities, but DEA did not believe that it would have significant economic impacts on small entities. In the IFR, DEA sought comments where DEA had discretion in the way in which provisions of the CMEA were implemented and regarding impact on manufacturers and distributors. DEA received no information that could be used to quantify any impacts and notes that reports in trade publications have indicated that sales of cold medications, which is where most scheduled listed chemical products are classified, have continued to grow. It seems unlikely, therefore, that regulated sellers have been significantly impacted by the CMEA requirements.

This final rule was developed in accordance with the principles of E.O. 12866 and 13563. E.O. 12866 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). E.O. 13563 is supplemental to and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review as established in E.O. 12866. E.O. 12866 classifies a “significant regulatory action,” requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), as any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive order.

DEA had determined that the September 2006 and April 2007 IFRs were “significant regulatory action[s]” under E.O. 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review, and accordingly the IFRs were reviewed by OMB. DEA estimated that the statutory changes enacted under the April 2007 IFR imposed minimal costs on United States importers, exporters, brokers, and traders.

As discussed above, this final rule finalizes the IFRs and makes one technical revision to the definition of “retail distributor,” provided in the September 2006 IFR, to mirror the statutory definition of “retail distributor” as set forth by the CMEA. Therefore, this final rule imposes no cost beyond the costs imposed by the IFRs. OMB has determined that this final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under E.O. 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review, and accordingly this rule has not been reviewed by OMB.

This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, it does not impose a cost greater than zero. Therefore, this final rule is not an E.O. 13771 regulatory action.

As stated in the September 2006 and April 2007 IFRs, DEA identified information collections and submitted those collection requests to OMB for review and clearance in accordance with review procedures of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

The September 2007 IFR updated DEA regulations for the requirements of the CMEA, “Self-certification, Training and Logbooks for Regulated Seller of Scheduled Listed Chemical Products” (OMB control number 1117-0046). The CMEA mandated a number of new information collections and recordkeeping. Regulated sellers are required to train any employee who will be involved in selling scheduled listed chemical products and to document the training. Regulated sellers must also self-certify to DEA that all affected employees have been trained and that the seller is in compliance with all CMEA provisions. Finally, the CMEA mandates that each sale at retail be documented in a written or electronic logbook and that the logbooks be retained for two years.

In the April 2007 IFR, DEA revised the information collected on DEA Form 486: Import/Export Declaration for list I and list II Chemicals [OMB information collection 1117-0023]. Those changes were discussed in the IFR and were necessary for DEA to implement the provisions of the CMEA.

DEA received OMB clearance for the information collections in the two IFRs. In addition, DEA did not receive any comments to the Paperwork Reduction Act aspect of these IFRs and is finalizing that aspect of the IFRs without change.

This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988 to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimizes litigation, provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct, and promotes simplification and burden reduction.

This rulemaking does not have federalism implications warranting the application of E.O. 13132. The final rules does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The rule does preempt State laws that are less stringent than the statutory requirements. These requirements, however, are mandated under the CMEA and DEA has no authority to alter them or change the preemption. Accordingly, this rulemaking does not have federalism implications warranting the application of E.O. 13132.

This final rule does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

DEA has determined pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq., that this action would not result in any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) in any one year. Therefore, neither a Small Government Agency Plan nor any other action is required under provisions of the UMRA of 1995.

This is a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Congressional Review Act) (CRA). As explained in the September 2006 and April 2007 IFRs, the April 2007 IFR was not a major rule; however, the September 2006 IFR was a major rule. This final rule finalizes the IFRs and makes one technical revision to the definition of “retail distributor” in the September 2006 IFR to mirror the statutory definition of “retail distributor.” Therefore, this final rule imposes no cost beyond the costs imposed by the IFRs. Pursuant to the CRA, DEA has delivered copies of this rule to both Houses of Congress and to the Comptroller General.

A major rule generally cannot take effect until 60 days after the date on which the rule is published in the Federal Register . 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(3). However, the CRA provides that “any rule for which an agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rule issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, shall take effect at such time as the Federal agency promulgating the rule determines.” 5 U.S.C. 808. As noted in the above discussion regarding the applicability of the APA, DEA was not required to publish a general NPRM. Therefore, this final rule takes effect as outlined in the “Dates” section of this final rule.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the IFR amending 21 CFR parts 1300 and 1313, which was published at 72 FR 17401 on April 9, 2007, is adopted as a final rule, without change, and the IFR amending 21 CFR parts 1300, 1309, 1310, 1313, and 1314, which was published at 71 FR 56008 on September 26, 2006 (correction at 71 FR 60609 on October 13, 2006), is adopted as a final rule, with the following change, as amended by the final rule published on December 30, 2016 (81 FR 96992), effective January 30, 2017, and delayed on January 30, 2017 (82 FR 8688), until March 21, 2017 (82 FR 8688):

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

On November 9, 2012, OFAC issued the Yemen Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR part 552 (the “Regulations”) (77 FR 67276, November 9, 2012), to implement Executive Order 13611 of May 16, 2012, “Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen” (77 FR 29533, May 18, 2012) (E.O. 13611). The Regulations were initially issued in abbreviated form for the purpose of providing immediate guidance to the public. OFAC is amending and reissuing the Regulations as a more comprehensive set of regulations that includes additional interpretive and definitional guidance, general licenses, statements of licensing policy, and other regulatory provisions that will provide further guidance to the public. Due to the number of regulatory sections being updated or added, OFAC is reissuing the Regulations in their entirety.

On May 16, 2012, the President, invoking the authority of, inter alia, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706) (IEEPA), issued E.O. 13611. In E.O. 13611, the President found that the actions and policies of certain members of the Government of Yemen and others threaten Yemen's peace, security, and stability, including by obstructing the implementation of the agreement of November 23, 2011, between the Government of Yemen and those in opposition to it, which provides for a peaceful transition of power that meets the legitimate demands and aspirations of the Yemeni people for change, and by obstructing the political process in Yemen. The President further found that these actions constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States and declared a national emergency to deal with that threat.

Section 1 of E.O. 13611 blocks, with certain exceptions, all property and interests in property that are in the United States, that come within the United States, or that are or come within the possession or control of any U.S. person, including any foreign branch, of the following persons: Any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to: (a) Have engaged in acts that directly or indirectly threaten the peace, security, or stability of Yemen, such as acts that obstruct the implementation of the agreement of November 23, 2011, between the Government of Yemen and those in opposition to it, which provides for a peaceful transition of power in Yemen, or that obstruct the political process in Yemen; (b) be a political or military leader of an entity that has engaged in the acts described in Section 1(a) of E.O. 13611; (c) have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, the acts described in Section 1(a) of E.O. 13611 or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13611; or (d) be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13611. The property and interests in property of the persons described above may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in.

In Section 2 of E.O. 13611, the President determined that the making of donations of certain articles, such as food, clothing, and medicine, intended to be used to relieve human suffering, as specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)), by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13611 would seriously impair his ability to deal with the national emergency declared in E.O. 13611. The President therefore prohibited the donation of such items unless authorized by OFAC.

Section 3 of E.O. 13611 provides that the prohibition on any transaction or dealing in blocked property or interests in property includes the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13611, and the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

Section 6 of E.O. 13611 prohibits any transaction by a U.S. person or within the United States that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in E.O. 13611, as well as any conspiracy formed to violate such prohibitions.

Section 9 of E.O. 13611 authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA, as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of E.O. 13611. Section 9 of E.O. 13611 also provides that the Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the U.S. Government.

In furtherance of the purposes of E.O. 13611, OFAC is amending and reissuing the Regulations. The Regulations implement targeted sanctions that are directed at persons determined to meet the criteria set forth in section 552.201(a) of the Regulations, as well as sanctions that may be set forth in any further Executive orders issued pursuant to the national emergency declared in E.O. 13611. The sanctions in E.O. 13611 do not generally prohibit trade or the provision of banking or other financial services to the country of Yemen. Instead, the sanctions in E.O. 13611 apply where the transaction or service in question involves property or interests in property that are blocked pursuant to these sanctions.

Subpart A of the Regulations clarifies the relation of this part to other laws and regulations. Subpart B of the Regulations implements the prohibitions contained in Sections 1, 2, 3, and 6 of E.O. 13611, as well as the prohibitions that may be set forth in any future Executive orders issued pursuant to the national emergency declared in E.O. 13611. See, e.g., §§ 552.201 and 552.205. Persons designated by or under the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to E.O. 13611, or otherwise subject to the blocking provisions of E.O. 13611, as well as persons who are blocked pursuant to any further Executive orders issued pursuant to the national emergency declared in E.O. 13611, are referred to throughout the Regulations as “persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 552.201.” The names of persons designated pursuant to E.O. 13611, or listed in or designated or identified pursuant to any further Executive orders issued pursuant to the national emergency declared in E.O. 13611, are published on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List), which is accessible via OFAC's website. Those names also are published in the Federal Register as they are added to the SDN List.

Sections 552.202 and 552.203 of subpart B detail the effect of transfers of blocked property in violation of the Regulations and set forth the requirement to hold blocked funds, such as currency, bank deposits, or liquidated financial obligations, in interest-bearing blocked accounts. Section 552.204 of subpart B provides that all expenses incident to the maintenance of blocked tangible property shall be the responsibility of the owners and operators of such property, and that such expenses shall not be met from blocked funds, unless otherwise authorized. The section further provides that blocked property may, in OFAC's discretion, be sold or liquidated and the net proceeds placed in a blocked interest-bearing account in the name of the owner of the property.

Section 552.205 of subpart B prohibits any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in section 552.201 of the Regulations, and any conspiracy formed to violate such prohibitions.

Section 552.206 of subpart B details transactions that are exempt from the prohibitions of the Regulations pursuant to section 203(b)(1) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1)), which relates to personal communications, as well as transactions that are exempt from the prohibitions of the Regulations pursuant to section 5 of E.O. 13611, which relates to the conduct of the official business of the United States Government.

In subpart C of the Regulations, new definitions are being added to other key terms used throughout the Regulations. Because these new definitions were inserted in alphabetical order, the definitions that were in the prior abbreviated set of regulations have been renumbered. Similarly, in subpart D, which contains interpretive sections regarding the Regulations, certain provisions have been added to those in the prior abbreviated set of regulations. Section 552.411 explains that the property and interests in property of an entity are blocked if the entity is directly or indirectly owned, whether individually or in the aggregate, 50 percent or more by one or more persons whose property and interests in property are blocked, whether or not the entity itself is incorporated into OFAC's SDN List.

Transactions otherwise prohibited by the Regulations but found to be consistent with U.S. policy may be authorized by one of the general licenses contained in subpart E of the Regulations or by a specific license issued pursuant to the procedures described in subpart E of 31 CFR part 501. Subpart E of the Regulations also contains certain statements of specific licensing policy in addition to the general licenses. General licenses and statements of licensing policy relating to this part also may be available through the Yemen-related sanctions page on OFAC's website: www.treasury.gov/ofac.

OFAC is also incorporating several new general licenses into the Regulations, making technical edits to certain existing general licenses, and renumbering existing general licenses. Sections 552.506, 552.508, and 552.510 authorize certain transactions relating to investment and reinvestment of certain funds, payments for legal services from funds originating outside the United States, and official activities of international organizations. In addition, § 552.506 was renumbered as § 552.507, and § 552.507 was renumbered as § 552.509.

Subpart F of the Regulations refers to subpart C of part 501 for recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Subpart G of the Regulations describes the civil and criminal penalties applicable to violations of the Regulations, as well as the procedures governing the potential imposition of a civil monetary penalty or issuance of a Finding of Violation. Subpart G also refers to appendix A of part 501 for a more complete description of these procedures.

Subpart H of the Regulations refers to subpart E of part 501 for applicable provisions relating to administrative procedures and contains a delegation of certain authorities of the Secretary of the Treasury. Subpart I of the Regulations sets forth a Paperwork Reduction Act notice.

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

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

On June 4, 2020, the EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of New Jersey. 85 FR 34379. In the NPRM, the EPA proposed to approve New Jersey's November 29, 2017 submittal requesting to remove the recordkeeping, reporting, modeling, and inventory requirements for TBAC from the SIP. The reader is referred to EPA's NPRM for more detailed background and rationale for this final action.

The EPA previously determined that TBAC has a negligible level of reactivity, revised the definition of VOC to exclude TBAC, and removed the recordkeeping, emission reporting, photochemical dispersion modeling, and inventory requirements for TBAC. 69 FR 69298 (November 29, 2004); 81 FR 9339 (February 25, 2016).

In order to conform with the EPA's current regulatory requirements for TBAC, New Jersey requested that New Jersey Administrative Code (NJAC) 7:27-34, “TBAC Emissions Reporting,” consisting of TBAC recordkeeping, emissions reporting, photochemical dispersion modeling, and inventory requirements, be removed from the SIP.

The EPA did not receive any comments in response to the June 4, 2020 NPRM.

The EPA is approving the removal of NJAC 7:27-34, “TBAC Emissions Reporting,” which includes recordkeeping, emissions reporting, photochemical dispersion modeling, and inventory requirements for TBAC, from the New Jersey SIP. This SIP revision will not interfere with attainment of any national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), reasonable further progress, or any other requirement of the CAA, including Section 110(l), and is consistent with the EPA's February 25, 2016 final rule. 81 FR 9339.

In this document, the EPA is amending regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. As described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below, the EPA is removing provisions of the EPA-Approved New Jersey State Regulations and Laws from the New Jersey State Implementation Plan, which is incorporated by reference in accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR part 51.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 28, 2020. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

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

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.

On June 29th, 2020 (85 FR 38830), EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of Connecticut. The NPRM proposed approval of amendments to Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) section 22a-174-18, Control of particulate matter (PM) and visible emissions. The formal SIP revision was submitted by Connecticut on October 19, 2018. The revision consists of amendments to subsections (c), (f), and (j) to define the process industries and activities to which this regulation applies, to make technical corrections to an emission-rate calculation method, and to make minor, non-substantive modifications in regulatory language. The rationale for EPA's proposed action is given in the NPRM and will not be restated here.

EPA received three comments during the comment period. The comments we received discuss subjects outside the scope of the action on this Connecticut air-quality regulation, do not explain (or provide a legal basis for) how the proposed action should differ in any way, and, indeed, make no specific mention of the proposed action. Consequently, the received comments are not germane to this rulemaking and require no further response.

EPA is approving, and incorporating into the Connecticut SIP, the revisions to subsections (c), (f), and (j) of RCSA section 22a-174-18, Control of Particulate Matter and Visible Emissions, effective on August 3, 2018, submitted to EPA on October 19, 2018.

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing incorporation by reference into the Connecticut SIP the Connecticut regulation referenced in Section III above. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 1 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 28, 2020. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

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

This document announces that, on October 9, 2020, October 7, 2020, October 2, 2020 and September 24, 2020, OMB approved the information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Report and Order, FCC 20-65, published at 85 FR 36786, June 18, 2020, FCC 20-53, published at 85 FR 35567 on June 11, 2020 and FCC 19-127, published 85 FR 7880 on February 12, 2020. The OMB Control Numbers are 3060-0016, 3060-0213, 3060-1133, 3060-0214, 3060-0932, 3060-0920, 3060-0027, 3060-0029, 3060-0405, 3060-0110, 3060-0031 and 3060-0075. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the effective date of the information collection requirements.

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on October 9, 2020, October 7, 2020, October 2, 2020 and September 24, 2020 for the information collection requirements contained in the Commission's rules.

No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Numbers 3060-0016, 3060-0213, 3060-1133, 3060-0214, 3060-0932, 3060-0920, 3060-0027, 3060-0029, 3060-0405, 3060-0110, 3060-0031 and 3060-0075.

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

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

OMB Control No.: 3060-0016.

OMB Approval Date: October 9, 2020.

OMB Expiration Date: October 31, 2023.

Title: FCC Form 2100, Application for Media Bureau Audio and Video Service Authorization, Schedule C (Former FCC Form 346); Sections 74.793(d) and 74.787, LPTV Out-of-Core Digital Displacement Application; Section 73.3700(g)(1)-(3), Post-Incentive Auction Licensing and Operations; Section 74.799, Low Power Television and TV Translator Channel Sharing.

Form No.: FCC Form 2100, Schedule C.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not for profit institutions; State, local or Tribal government.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 4,460 respondents and 4,460 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 2.5-7 hours.

Frequency of Response: One-time reporting requirement; on occasion reporting requirement; third party disclosure requirement.

Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in Section 154(i), 303, 307, 308 and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 42,370 hours.

Annual Cost Burden: $23,026,757.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

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

Needs and Uses: FCC Form 2100, Schedule C is used by licensees/permittees/applicants when applying for authority to construct or make changes in a Low Power Television, TV Translator or DTV Transition.

On May 12, 2020, the Commission adopted Amendment of Section 73.3580 of the Commission's Rules Regarding Public Notice of the Filing of Applications; Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative; Revision of the Public Notice Requirements of Section 73.3580, Second Report and Order, MB Docket Nos. 17-254, 17-105, & 05-6, FCC 20-65 (rel. May 13, 2020). The Commission adopted new, streamlined procedures for stations to provide public notice of the filing of certain applications. Stations, including stations filing for new construction permits or major modifications to facilities, that were previously required to post public notice in a local newspaper, must now post notice online, either on the station website or a website affiliated with the station, its licensee, or its parent entity, or else must post notice on a publicly accessible, locally targeted website, for 30 continuous days following acceptance of the application for filing.

This submission was made to OMB for approval of the modified third-party disclosure requirements for this Information Collection, as adopted in the 2020 Public Notice Second Report and Order. The changes pertaining to this Information Collection and to 47 CFR 73.3580 adopted in the 2020 Public Notice Second Report and Order do not necessitate changes to the Form 2100, Schedule C, nor do they affect the substance, burden hours, or costs of completing the forms. The rule changes do, however, reduce burdens and costs associated with filing the application.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0075.

OMB Approval Date: September 24, 2020.

OMB Expiration Date: September 30, 2023.

Title: Application for Transfer of Control of a Corporate Licensee or Permittee, or Assignment of License or Permit, for an FM or TV Translator Station, or a Low Power Television Station, FCC Form 345.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not for profit institutions; Local or Tribal Government.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 1,700 respondents; 3,900 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.075-1.25 hours.

Frequency of Response: Third party disclosure requirement and on occasion reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 3,013 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $3,943,979.

Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Sections 154(i) and 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

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

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: Filing of the FCC Form 345 is required when applying for authority for assignment of license or permit, or for consent to transfer of control of a corporate licensee or permittee for an FM or TV translator station, or low power TV station.

This collection also includes the third-party disclosure requirement of 47 CFR Section 73.3580 (OMB approval was received for Section 73.3580 under OMB Control Number 3060-0031). Section 73.3580, as amended in the Commission's 2020 Public Notice Second Report and Order, requires local public notice of the filing of all applications to assign or transfer control of a broadcast station authorization, including those of an FM or TV translator or booster station or LPTV station. Notice is given by an applicant posting notice of the application filing on its station website, its licensee website, its parent entity website, or on a publicly accessible, locally targeted website, for 30 consecutive days beginning within five business days of acceptance of the application for filing. The online notice must link to a copy of the application as filed in the Commission's LMS licensing database. Applicants for assignment or transfer of control of a low-power television (LPTV) station that locally originates programming must also make a total of six on-air announcements giving notice that their applications have been accepted for filing.

On May 12, 2020, the Commission adopted Amendment of Section 73.3580 of the Commission's Rules Regarding Public Notice of the Filing of Applications; Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative; Revision of the Public Notice Requirements of Section 73.3580, Second Report and Order, MB Docket Nos. 17-254, 17-105, & 05-6, FCC 20-65 (rel. May 13, 2020). The Commission adopted new, streamlined procedures for stations to provide public notice of the filing of certain applications. Applicants, including applicants for assignment or transfer of control of authorizations for FM or TV translators or LPTV stations, that were previously required to post public notice in a local newspaper, must now post notice online, either on the station website or a website affiliated with the station, its licensee, or its parent entity, or else must post notice on a publicly accessible, locally targeted website, for 30 continuous days following acceptance of the application for filing. Stations that are required to make on-air announcements of the filing of certain applications, including an applicant for assignment or transfer of control of an LPTV station that locally originates programming, must continue to do so, but the announcements are shorter and direct viewers and listeners to the application as filed and displayed in either the station's Online Public Inspection File or another Commission database. A total of six on-air announcements are required, at least one per week and no more than one per day or two per week, to be broadcast between 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. local time, Monday through Friday, beginning after the application is accepted for filing.

This submission was made to OMB for approval of the modified third-party disclosure requirements for this Information Collection, as adopted in the 2020 Public Notice Second Report and Order. The changes pertaining to this Information Collection and to 47 CFR 73.3580 adopted in the 2020 Public Notice Second Report and Order do not necessitate changes to the Form 345, nor do they affect the substance, burden hours, or costs of completing the forms. The rule changes do, however, reduce burdens and costs associated with filing the application.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0027.

OMB Approval Date: October 2, 2020.

OMB Expiration Date: October 31, 2023.

Title: Application for Construction Permit for Commercial Broadcast Station, FCC Form 301; Form 2100, Schedule A—Application for Media Bureau Video Service Authorization; 47 Sections 73.3700(b)(1) and (b)(2) and Section 73.3800, Post Auction Licensing; Form 2100, Schedule 301-FM—Commercial FM Station Construction Permit Application.

Form No.: FCC Form 2100, Schedule A, FCC Form 301, FCC Form 2100, Schedule 301-FM.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not for profit institutions; State, local or Tribal Government.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 3,092 respondents and 4,199 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.075 hours-6.25 hours.

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

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

Total Annual Burden: 12,435 hours.

Annual Cost Burden: $62,308,388.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

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

Needs and Uses: On May 12, 2020, the Commission adopted Amendment of Section 73.3580 of the Commission's Rules Regarding Public Notice of the Filing of Applications; Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative; Revision of the Public Notice Requirements of Section 73.3580, Second Report and Order, MB Docket Nos. 17-254, 17-105, & 05-6, FCC 20-65 (rel. May 13, 2020). The Commission adopted new, streamlined procedures for stations to provide public notice of the filing of certain applications. Stations, including stations filing for new construction permits or major modifications to facilities, that were previously required to post public notice in a local newspaper, must now post notice online, either on the station website or a website affiliated with the station, its licensee, or its parent entity, or else must post notice on a publicly accessible, locally targeted website, for 30 continuous days following acceptance of the application for filing. Stations that are required to make on-air announcements of the filing of certain applications, must continue to do so, but the announcements are shorter and direct viewers and listeners to the application as filed and displayed in either the station's Online Public Inspection File or another Commission database. A total of six on-air announcements are required, at least one per week and no more than one per day or two per week, to be broadcast between 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. local time, Monday through Friday, beginning after the application is accepted for filing.

This submission was made to OMB for approval of the modified third-party disclosure requirements for this Information Collection, as adopted in the 2020 Public Notice Second Report and Order. The changes pertaining to this Information Collection and to 47 CFR 73.3580 and 47 CFR 73.3594 adopted in the 2020 Public Notice Second Report and Order, do not necessitate changes to the Schedule 301, nor do they affect the substance, burden hours, or costs of completing the forms. The rule changes do, however, reduce burdens and costs associated with filing the application. 47 CFR 73.3571(j)(3) and 73.3573(g)(3) require that applicants must comply with the local public notice provisions of § 73.3580(c)(5).

OMB Control Number: 3060-0029.

OMB Approval Date: October 2, 2020.

OMB Expiration Date: October 31, 2023.

Title: FCC Form 2100, Schedule 340, Noncommercial Educational Station for Reserved Channel Construction Permit Application.

Form Number: FCC Form 2100, Schedule 340.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, not for profit institutions and State, local or Tribal Government.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 2,820 respondents; 2,820 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.5 hours-6 hours.

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

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

Total Annual Burden: 6,603 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $30,039,119.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

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

Needs and Uses: This submission was made to the Office of Management (OMB) for the approval of information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Reexamination of the Comparative Standards and Procedures for Licensing Noncommercial Educational Broadcast Stations and Low Power FM Stations, Report and Order, FCC 19-127, 34 FCC Rcd 12519 (2019) (NCE LPFM Report and Order), adopted December 10, 2019, and released on December 11, 2019, where the Commission revised its rules and procedures for considering competing applications for new and major modifications to noncommercial educational full-service FM and full-power television (NCE), and low power FM (LPFM) broadcast stations. The changes are designed to improve the comparative selection and licensing procedures, expedite the initiation of new service to the public, eliminate unnecessary applicant burdens, and reduce the number of appeals of NCE comparative licensing decisions.

First, to improve the NCE comparative process, the NCE LPFM Report and Order: (1) Eliminates the governing document requirements for established local applicants and applicants claiming diversity points; (2) establishes a uniform divestiture pledge policy; (3) expands the tie-breaker criteria and revises the procedures for allocating time in mandatory time-sharing situations; and (4) clarifies and modifies the “holding period” rule.

Second, the NCE LPFM Report and Order adopts the following changes to the LPFM comparative process: (1) Prohibits amendments that attempt to cure past unauthorized station violations; (2) authorizes time-sharing discussions prior to tentative selectee designations; and (3) establishes procedures for remaining tentative selectees following dismissal of point aggregation time-share agreements.

Third, the NCE LPFM Report and Order adopts the following general changes: (1) Defines which applicant board changes are major changes; (2) clarifies the reasonable site assurance requirements; (3) streamlines construction deadline tolling procedures and notification requirements; (4) lengthens the LPFM construction period; and (5) eliminates restrictions on the assignment and transfer of LPFM authorizations.

Specifically, pertaining to this Information Collection and NCE stations, the Commission is revising the relevant rules, 47 CFR 73.7002, 73.7003, and 73.7005, the form, and corresponding instructions, as follows:

(1) Changing all former references to “holding period” to “maintenance of comparative qualifications.” During the four-year “maintenance of comparative qualifications” period, an NCE station receiving a decisive preference for fair distribution of service, in accordance with the provisions of 47 CFR 73.7002, must certify that any technical modification to its authorized facilities satisfies the technical requirements of 47 CFR 73.7005(b).

(2) Adding an “Established Local Applicant Pledge,” requiring an applicant to pledge to maintain localism characteristics during the four-year maintenance of comparative qualifications period, if the applicant certifies that it qualifies for points as an “established local applicant” in the Point System Factors of 47 CFR 73.7003.

(3) Adding a “Diversity Pledge,” requiring an applicant to pledge to comply with all of the restrictions on station modifications and acquisitions (as defined in 47 CFR 73.7005) during the four-year maintenance of comparative qualifications period, if the applicant certifies that it qualifies for “local diversity of ownership” points in the Point System Factors of 47 CFR 73.7003.

(4) Modifying the divestiture sub-question certification, to reflect the new divestiture policies, in the Diversity of Ownership question in the Point System Factors Section.

(5) Adding a new question in the Tie Breakers section of the form, reflecting the new third tie-breaker criterion of 47 CFR 73.7003(c)(3).

(6) Adding a new question in the Tie Breakers Section of the form, requiring the applicant to provide its initial date of establishment.

(7) Adding a Reasonable Site Assurance Certification in the Technical Certifications Section of the form, requiring the applicant to certify that it has obtained reasonable assurance from the tower owner or authorized representative, that its specified site will be available.

The revisions to the relevant rules, and the changes to the questions in Schedule 340 listed above affect the substance, burden hours, and costs of completing the Schedule 340. Therefore, this submission was made to OMB for approval of revised Information Collection requirements.

On May 12, 2020, the Commission adopted Amendment of Section 73.3580 of the Commission's Rules Regarding Public Notice of the Filing of Applications; Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative; Revision of the Public Notice Requirements of Section 73.3580, Second Report and Order, MB Docket Nos. 17-254, 17-105, & 05-6, FCC 20-65 (rel. May 13, 2020). The Commission adopted new, streamlined procedures for stations to provide public notice of the filing of certain applications. Stations, including stations filing for new construction permits or major modifications to facilities, that were previously required to post public notice in a local newspaper, must now post notice online, either on the station website or a website affiliated with the station, its licensee, or its parent entity, or else must post notice on a publicly accessible, locally targeted website, for 30 continuous days following acceptance of the application for filing. Stations that are required to make on-air announcements of the filing of certain applications, must continue to do so, but the announcements are shorter and direct viewers and listeners to the application as filed and displayed in either the station's Online Public Inspection File or another Commission database. A total of six on-air announcements are required, at least one per week and no more than one per day or two per week, to be broadcast between 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. local time, Monday through Friday, beginning after the application is accepted for filing.

This submission was made to OMB for approval of the modified third-party disclosure requirements for this Information Collection, as adopted in the 2020 Public Notice Second Report and Order. The changes pertaining to this Information Collection and to 47 CFR 73.3580 adopted in the 2020 Public Notice Second Report and Order, do not necessitate changes to the Schedule 340, nor do they affect the substance, burden hours, or costs of completing the forms. The rule changes do, however, reduce burdens and costs associated with filing the application.

Control Number: 3060-0031.

OMB Approval Date: September 24, 2020.

OMB Expiration Date: September 30, 2023.

Title: Application for Consent to Assignment of Broadcast Station Construction Permit or License, FCC Form 314; Application for Consent to Transfer Control of Entity Holding Broadcast Station Construction Permit or License, FCC Form 315; Section 73.3580, Local Public Notice of Filing of Broadcast Applications.

Form Number: FCC Forms 314 and 315.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not-for-profit institutions; State, local or Tribal government.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 4,920 respondents and 13,160 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.075 to 7 hours.

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

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

Total Annual Burden: 17,159 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $51,493,759.

Privacy Impact Assessment(s): No impacts.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality and respondents are not being asked to submit confidential information to the Commission.

Needs and Uses: This submission was made to the Office of Management (OMB) for the approval of information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Reexamination of the Comparative Standards and Procedures for Licensing Noncommercial Educational Broadcast Stations and Low Power FM Stations, Report and Order, FCC 19-127, 34 FCC Rcd 12519 (2019) (NCE LPFM Report and Order), adopted December 10, 2019, and released on December 11, 2019, where the Commission revised its rules and procedures for considering competing applications for new and major modifications to noncommercial educational full-service FM and full-power television (NCE), and low power FM (LPFM) broadcast stations. The changes are designed to improve the comparative selection and licensing procedures, expedite the initiation of new service to the public, eliminate unnecessary applicant burdens, and reduce the number of appeals of NCE comparative licensing decisions.

First, to improve the NCE comparative process, the NCE LPFM Report and Order: (1) Eliminates the governing document requirements for established local applicants and applicants claiming diversity points; (2) establishes a uniform divestiture pledge policy; (3) expands the tie-breaker criteria and revises the procedures for allocating time in mandatory time-sharing situations; and (4) clarifies and modifies the “holding period” rule.

Second, the NCE LPFM Report and Order adopts the following changes to the LPFM comparative process: (1) Prohibits amendments that attempt to cure past unauthorized station violations; (2) authorizes time-sharing discussions prior to tentative selectee designations; and (3) establishes procedures for remaining tentative selectees following dismissal of point aggregation time-share agreements.

Third, the NCE LPFM Report and Order adopts the following general changes: (1) Defines which applicant board changes are major changes; (2) clarifies the reasonable site assurance requirements; (3) streamlines construction deadline tolling procedures and notification requirements; (4) lengthens the LPFM construction period; and (5) eliminates restrictions on the assignment and transfer of LPFM authorizations.

Specifically, pertaining to this Information Collection and NCE and LPFM stations, the Commission is removing the restrictive LPFM station three-year “holding period” certification from CDBS Forms 314 and 315, and revising the relevant rules, 47 CFR 73.865 and 73.7005, the forms, and corresponding instructions, as follows:

(1) Changing all references to “holding period” to “maintenance of comparative qualifications,” and requiring NCE stations awarded by the point system to certify satisfying the four-year “maintenance of comparative qualifications” period;

(2) requiring LPFM applicants to certify that it has been at least 18 months since the station's initial construction permit was granted in accordance with 47 CFR 73.865(c);

(3) requiring LPFM applicants to certify that the assignment/transfer of the LPFM authorization satisfies the consideration restrictions of 47 CFR 73.865(a)(1);

(4) requiring LPFM authorizations awarded by the LPFM comparative point system, to indicate whether the LPFM station has operated on-air for at least four years since grant;

(5) requiring NCE applicants to certify that the proposed acquisition comports with 47 CFR 73.7005(c) diversity requirements, based on any “diversity of ownership” points awarded in an NCE points system analysis.

Moreover, the NCE LPFM Report and Order will increase the number of applicants eligible to file FCC Forms 314 and 315 by eliminating both the absolute prohibition on the assignment/transfer of LPFM construction permits and the three-year holding period restriction on assigning LPFM licenses. The elimination of these restrictions will benefit the LPFM service by increasing the likelihood that LPFM permits will be constructed, provide new service to communities, and help make the LPFM stations more viable.

On May 12, 2020, the Commission adopted Amendment of Section 73.3580 of the Commission's Rules Regarding Public Notice of the Filing of Applications; Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative; Revision of the Public Notice Requirements of Section 73.3580, Second Report and Order, MB Docket Nos. 17-254, 17-105, & 05-6, FCC 20-65 (rel. May 13, 2020). The Commission adopted new, streamlined procedures for stations to provide public notice of the filing of certain applications. Stations, including commercial stations filing assignment and transfer applications, that were previously required to post public notice in a local newspaper, must now post notice online either on the station website or a website affiliated with the station, its licensee, or its parent entity, or else must post notice on a publicly accessible, locally targeted website, for 30 continuous days following acceptance of the application for filing. Stations, including those filing assignment and transfer applications, that are required to make on-air announcements of the filing of certain applications, must continue to do so, but the announcements are shorter and direct viewers and listeners to the application as filed and displayed in either the station's Online Public Inspection File or another Commission database. A total of six on-air announcements are required, at least one per week and no more than one per day or two per week, to be broadcast between 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. local time, Monday through Friday, beginning after the application is accepted for filing.

This submission was made to OMB for approval of the modified third-party disclosure requirements for this Information Collection, as adopted in the 2020 Public Notice Second Report and Order. The changes pertaining to this Information Collection and to 47 CFR 73.3580 adopted in the 2020 Public Notice Second Report and Order, do not necessitate changes to the Forms 314 or 315, nor do they affect the substance, burden hours, or costs of completing the forms. The rule changes do, however, reduce burdens and costs associated with filing the application.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0110.

OMB Approval Date: September 24, 2020.

OMB Expiration Date: September 30, 2023.

Title: FCC Form 2100, Application for Renewal of Broadcast Station License, LMS Schedule 303-S.

Form Number: FCC 2100, LMS Schedule 303-S.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not for profit institutions; State, Local or Tribal Governments.

Number of Respondent and Responses: 5,126 respondents, 5,126 responses.

Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Sections 154(i), 303, 307 and 308 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 204 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.5 hours-12 hours.

Frequency of Response: Every eight-year reporting requirement; Third party disclosure requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 14,868 hours.

Total Annual Costs: $3,994,164.

Obligation of Response: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for the collection is contained Sections 154(i), 303, 307 and 308 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 204 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

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

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: On May 12, 2020, the Commission adopted Amendment of Section 73.3580 of the Commission's Rules Regarding Public Notice of the Filing of Applications; Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative; Revision of the Public Notice Requirements of Section 73.3580, Second Report and Order, MB Docket Nos. 17-254, 17-105, & 05-6, FCC 20-65 (rel. May 13, 2020). The Commission adopted new, streamlined procedures for stations to provide public notice of the filing of certain applications. Some stations that were previously required to post public notice in a local newspaper, must now post notice online, either on the station website or a website affiliated with the station, its licensee, or its parent entity, or else must post notice on a publicly accessible, locally targeted website, for 30 continuous days following acceptance of the application for filing. Stations that are required to make on-air announcements of the filing of certain applications, including applications for the renewal of broadcast licenses, must continue to do so, but the announcements are shorter and direct viewers and listeners to the application as filed and displayed in either the station's Online Public Inspection File or another Commission database. A total of six on-air announcements are required, at least one per week and no more than one per day or two per week, to be broadcast between 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. local time, Monday through Friday, beginning after the application is accepted for filing. The Commission also clarified low-power FM (LPFM) stations' obligations to provide local public notice, and amended section 73.801 of the rules (47 CFR 73.801, listing FCC rules that apply to the LPFM service) to include the local public notice rule, 47 CFR 73.3580.

This submission was made to OMB for approval of the modified third-party disclosure requirements for this Information Collection, as adopted in the 2020 Public Notice Second Report and Order. The changes pertaining to this Information Collection and to 47 CFR 73.3580 adopted in the 2020 Public Notice Second Report and Order, do not necessitate changes to Schedule 303-S, nor do they affect the substance, burden hours, or costs of completing the forms. The rule changes do, however, reduce burdens and costs associated with filing the application.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0213.

OMB Approval Date: October 9, 2020.

OMB Expiration Date: October 31, 2023.

Title: Section 73.3525, Agreements for Removing Application Conflicts.

Form Number: N/A.

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

Number of Respondents and Responses: 38 respondents; 38 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour.

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

Total Annual Burden: 38 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $91,200.

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

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Sections 154(i) and 311 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Needs and Uses: The Commission is submitting this revision to the Office of Management and Budget for approval to remove the information collection requirements, annual burden hours and annual cost contained in this collection for 47 CFR 73.3535(b). The Commission removed this rule section when it adopted the Amendment of Section 73.3580 of the Commission's Rules Regarding Public Notice of the Filing of Applications, MB Docket No. 17-264, FCC 20-65 on May 12, 2020.

The following information collection requirements remain in this collection: 47 CFR 73.3525 states (a) except as provided in § 73.3523 regarding dismissal of applications in comparative renewal proceedings, whenever applicants for a construction permit for a broadcast station enter into an agreement to procure the removal of a conflict between applications pending before the FCC by withdrawal or amendment of an application or by its dismissal pursuant to § 73.3568, all parties thereto shall, within 5 days after entering into the agreement, file with the FCC a joint request for approval of such agreement. The joint request shall be accompanied by a copy of the agreement, including any ancillary agreements, and an affidavit of each party to the agreement setting forth:

(1) The reasons why it is considered that such agreement is in the public interest;

(2) A statement that its application was not filed for the purpose of reaching or carrying out such agreement;

(3) A certification that neither the applicant nor its principals has received any money or other consideration in excess of the legitimate and prudent expenses of the applicant; Provided That this provision shall not apply to bona fide merger agreements;

(4) The exact nature and amount of any consideration paid or promised;

(5) An itemized accounting of the expenses for which it seeks reimbursement; and

(6) The terms of any oral agreement relating to the dismissal or withdrawal of its application.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0214.

OMB Approval Date: October 7, 2020.

OMB Expiration Date: October 31, 2023.

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

Form Number: N/A.

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

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

Estimated Time per Response: 1-52 hours.

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

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

Total Annual Burden: 2,043,805 hours.

Total Annual Cost: None.

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

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

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

Needs and Uses: On May 12, 2020, the Commission adopted Amendment of Section 73.3580 of the Commission's Rules Regarding Public Notice of the Filing of Applications; Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative; Revision of the Public Notice Requirements of Section 73.3580, Second Report and Order, MB Docket Nos. 17-254, 17-105, & 05-6, FCC 20-65 (rel. May 13, 2020). The Commission adopted new, streamlined procedures for stations to provide public notice of the filing of certain applications. Stations, including stations filing for new construction permits or major modifications to facilities, that were previously required to post public notice in a local newspaper, must now post notice online, either on the station website or a website affiliated with the station, its licensee, or its parent entity, or else must post notice on a publicly accessible, locally targeted website, for 30 continuous days following acceptance of the application for filing. Stations that are required to make on-air announcements of the filing of certain applications, must continue to do so, but the announcements are shorter and direct viewers and listeners to the application as filed and displayed in either the station's Online Public Inspection File or another Commission database. A total of six on-air announcements are required, at least one per week and no more than one per day or two per week, to be broadcast between 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. local time, Monday through Friday, beginning after the application is accepted for filing.

This submission was made to OMB for approval of the modified third-party disclosure requirements for this Information Collection, as adopted in the 2020 Public Notice Second Report and Order. The modified information collection requirements, revising rules 47 CFR 73.3526(e)(13) and 47 CFR 73.3527(e)(10) covering local public notice announcements, are as follows:

47 CFR 73.3526(e)(13)—Local public notice announcements. Each applicant for renewal of license shall, within 7 days of the last day of broadcast of the local public notice of filing announcements required pursuant to § 73.3580(c)(3), place in the station's online public inspection file a statement certifying compliance with this requirement. The dates and times that the on-air announcements were broadcast shall be made part of the certifying statement. The certifying statement shall be retained in the public file for the period specified in § 73.3580(e)(2) (for as long as the application to which it refers).

47 CFR 73.3527(e)(10)—Local public notice announcements. Each applicant for renewal of license shall, within 7 days of the last day of broadcast of the local public notice of filing announcements required pursuant to § 73.3580(c)(3), place in the station's online public inspection file a statement certifying compliance with this requirement. The dates and times that the on-air announcements were broadcast shall be made part of the certifying statement. The certifying statement shall be retained in the public file for the period specified in § 73.3580(e)(2) (for as long as the application to which it refers).

OMB Control Number: 3060-0405.

OMB Approval Date: October 2, 2020.

OMB Expiration Date: October 31, 2023.

Title: Form 2100, Schedule 349—FM Translator or FM Booster Station Construction Permit Application.

Form Number: FCC Form 2100, Schedule 349.

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

Number of Respondents and Responses: 1,250 respondents; 3,750 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.5 hours-1.5 hours.

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

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

Total Annual Burden: 4,050 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $4,447,539.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

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

Needs and Uses: On May 12, 2020, the Commission adopted Amendment of Section 73.3580 of the Commission's Rules Regarding Public Notice of the Filing of Applications; Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative; Revision of the Public Notice Requirements of Section 73.3580, Second Report and Order, MB Docket Nos. 17-254, 17-105, & 05-6, FCC 20-65 (rel. May 13, 2020). The Commission adopted new, streamlined procedures for stations to provide public notice of the filing of certain applications. Stations, including stations filing for new construction permits or major modifications to facilities, that were previously required to post public notice in a local newspaper, must now post notice online, either on the station website or a website affiliated with the station, its licensee, or its parent entity, or else must post notice on a publicly accessible, locally targeted website, for 30 continuous days following acceptance of the application for filing.

This submission was made to OMB for approval of the modified third-party disclosure requirements for this Information Collection, as adopted in the 2020 Public Notice Second Report and Order. The changes pertaining to this Information Collection and to 47 CFR 73.3580 adopted in the 2020 Public Notice Second Report and Order, do not necessitate changes to the Schedule 349, nor do they affect the substance, burden hours, or costs of completing the forms. The rule changes do, however, reduce burdens and costs associated with filing the application.

In April 2020, the Commission adopted a Report and Order making certain changes to the LPFM technical rules, to improve reception and increase flexibility while maintaining interference protection and the core LPFM goals of diversity and localism. Amendments of Parts 73 and 74 to Improve the Low Power FM Radio Service Technical Rules; Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative, Report and Order, MB Docket Nos. 19-193, 17-105, FCC 20-53 (rel. Apr. 23, 2020) (2020 Technical Report and Order).

LPFM stations provide a secondary, noncommercial radio service with a community focus. The Commission originally designed LPFM engineering requirements to be simple so that non-profit organizations with limited engineering expertise and small budgets could readily apply for, construct, and operate community-oriented stations serving highly localized areas. LPFM organizations suggested that the service has matured and requires additional engineering options to improve reception. Thus, the 2020 Technical Report and Order adopted the following rules: Allow expanded LPFM use of directional antennas. All LPFM stations may use directional facilities, with either off-the-shelf or composite antennas, upon a satisfactory engineering showing. Such antennas could improve service near international borders by allowing LPFM stations to serve more listeners in the United States while continuing to protect Mexican and Canadian stations.

Redefine “Minor Changes” for LPFM stations. An LPFM station may apply for approval to relocate its transmitter site without awaiting a filing window if the change is “minor,” redefined in the 2020 Technical Report and Order as a move of 11.2 kilometers or less. The 2020 Technical Report and Order also allowed proposals of greater distances to qualify as minor if the existing and proposed service contours overlap.

Permit LPFM Use of FM Booster Stations. FM booster stations amplify and retransmit a station's signal. The 2020 Technical Report and Order amended rules that had prohibited LPFM stations from operating booster stations, allowing LPFM stations to operate an FM booster in lieu of an FM translator when a booster would better address unique terrain challenges.

Allow Shared Emergency Alert System (EAS) Equipment. Co-owned, co-located radio stations can share EAS equipment, but this option was not available to LPFM stations because they cannot be co-owned. The 2020 Technical Report and Order permitted co-located LPFM stations (particularly those in time-share arrangements) to share an EAS decoder pursuant to an agreement for common access as well as common responsibility for any EAS rule violations, thus potentially reducing costs.

Facilitate Waivers of Requirement to Protect Television Stations Operating on Channel 6. Stations on the part of the FM band reserved for NCE use must currently protect adjacent television stations on Channel 6 (TV6). The 2020 Technical Report and Order deferred to a future proceeding consideration of a proposal to eliminate the protection of digital television stations operating on TV6. The 2020 Technical Report and Order stated that until such a proceeding is resolved, the Commission will accept FM proposals that are short-spaced to TV6 if the FM applicant demonstrates no interference. Alternatively, the 2020 Technical Report and Order added language to the rules allowing reserved band radio stations to provide an agreement indicating the concurrence of all potentially affected digital TV6 stations.

Miscellaneous Changes. The 2020 Technical Report and Order added language to 47 CFR 73.850 requiring LPFM stations to notify the Commission if they are silent for ten days and to seek authority for silent periods over 30 days, as required for all other broadcasters, thus codifying a longstanding policy that the Bureau already applies to the LPFM service that allows it to identify and assist LPFM stations at risk of losing their licenses automatically under section 312(g) of the Communications Act.

Specifically, pertaining to this Information Collection and FM Booster (and LPFM) stations, the Commission is revising the form, the corresponding instructions, and the information collection as follows:

(1) Permitting LPFM licensees to own and operate FM Booster stations. The 2020 Technical Report and Order will increase the number of applicants eligible to file LMS Schedule 349 by eliminating the absolute prohibition on the cross-ownership of FM Booster stations by LPFM licenses. The overall number of respondents may increase because these rule changes expand the universe of applicants eligible to apply for an FM Booster station construction permit. Therefore, this submission was made to OMB for approval of revised Information Collection requirements.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0920.

OMB Approval Date: October 2, 2020.

OMB Expiration Date: October 31, 2023.

Title: Form 2100, Schedule 318—Low Power FM Station Construction Permit Application; Report and Order in MM Docket No. 99-25 Creation of Low Power Radio Service; Sections 73.801, 73.807, 73.809, 73.810, 73.816, 73.827, 73.850, 73.865, 73.870, 73.871, 73.872, 73.877, 73.878, 73.318, 73.1030, 73.1207, 73.1212, 73.1300, 73.1350, 73.1610, 73.1620, 73.1750, 73.1943, 73.3525, 73.3550, 73.3598, 11.61(ii).

Form No.: Form 2100, Schedule 318.

Respondents: Not-for-profit institutions; State, local or Tribal governments.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 24,606 respondents with multiple responses; 31,324 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: .0025-12 hours.

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

Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in sections 154(i), 303, 308 and 325(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 52,889 hours.

Total Annual Costs: $1,229,370.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: This information collection does not affect individuals or households; thus, there are no impacts under the Privacy Act.

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

Needs and Uses: This submission was made to the Office of Management (OMB) for the approval of information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Reexamination of the Comparative Standards and Procedures for Licensing Noncommercial Educational Broadcast Stations and Low Power FM Stations, Report and Order, FCC 19-127, 34 FCC Rcd 12519 (2019) (NCE LPFM Report and Order), adopted December 10, 2019, and released on December 11, 2019, where the Commission revised its rules and procedures for considering competing applications for new and major modifications to noncommercial educational full-service FM and full-power television (NCE), and low power FM (LPFM) broadcast stations. The changes are designed to improve the comparative selection and licensing procedures, expedite the initiation of new service to the public, eliminate unnecessary applicant burdens, and reduce the number of appeals of NCE comparative licensing decisions.

First, to improve the NCE comparative process, the NCE LPFM Report and Order: (1) Eliminates the governing document requirements for established local applicants and applicants claiming diversity points; (2) establishes a uniform divestiture pledge policy; (3) expands the tie-breaker criteria and revises the procedures for allocating time in mandatory time-sharing situations; and (4) clarifies and modifies the “holding period” rule.

Second, the NCE LPFM Report and Order adopts the following changes to the LPFM comparative process: (1) Prohibits amendments that attempt to cure past unauthorized station violations; (2) authorizes time-sharing discussions prior to tentative selectee designations; and (3) establishes procedures for remaining tentative selectees following dismissal of point aggregation time-share agreements.

Third, the NCE LPFM Report and Order adopts the following general changes: (1) Defines which applicant board changes are major changes; (2) clarifies the reasonable site assurance requirements; (3) streamlines construction deadline tolling procedures and notification requirements; (4) lengthens the LPFM construction period; and (5) eliminates restrictions on the assignment and transfer of LPFM authorizations.

Specifically, pertaining to this Information Collection and LPFM stations, the Commission is revising the relevant rules, 47 CFR 73.872, the form, and corresponding instructions, as follows:

(1) Adding a Reasonable Site Assurance Certification in the Technical Certifications Section of the form, requiring the applicant to certify that it has obtained reasonable assurance from the tower owner or authorized representative, that its specified site will be available. The revisions to the relevant rules, and the changes to the questions in Schedule 318 listed above affect the substance, burden hours, and costs of completing the Schedule 318. Therefore, this submission was made to OMB for approval of revised Information Collection requirements. On May 12, 2020, the Commission adopted Amendment of Section 73.3580 of the Commission's Rules Regarding Public Notice of the Filing of Applications; Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative; Revision of the Public Notice Requirements of Section 73.3580, Second Report and Order, MB Docket Nos. 17-254, 17-105, & 05-6, FCC 20-65 (rel. May 13, 2020). The Commission adopted new, streamlined procedures for stations to provide public notice of the filing of certain applications. Stations, including stations filing for new construction permits or major modifications to facilities, that were previously required to post public notice in a local newspaper, must now post notice online, either on the station website or a website affiliated with the station, its licensee, or its parent entity, or else must post notice on a publicly accessible, locally targeted website, for 30 continuous days following acceptance of the application for filing. Stations that are required to make on-air announcements of the filing of certain applications, must continue to do so, but the announcements are shorter and direct viewers and listeners to the application as filed and displayed in either the station's Online Public Inspection File or another Commission database. A total of six on-air announcements are required, at least one per week and no more than one per day or two per week, to be broadcast between 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. local time, Monday through Friday, beginning after the application is accepted for filing. The Commission also clarified LPFM stations' obligations to provide local public notice, and amended section 73.801 of the rules (47 CFR 73.801, listing FCC rules that apply to the LPFM service) to include the local public notice rule, 47 CFR 73.3580.

This submission was made to OMB for approval of the modified third-party disclosure requirements for this Information Collection, as adopted in the 2020 Public Notice Second Report and Order. The changes pertaining to this Information Collection and to 47 CFR 73.3580 adopted in the 2020 Public Notice Second Report and Order, do not necessitate changes to the Schedule 318, nor do they affect the substance, burden hours, or costs of completing the forms. The rule changes do, however, reduce burdens and costs associated with filing the application.

In April 2020, the Commission adopted a Report and Order making certain changes to the LPFM technical rules, to improve reception and increase flexibility while maintaining interference protection and the core LPFM goals of diversity and localism. Amendments of Parts 73 and 74 to Improve the Low Power FM Radio Service Technical Rules; Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative, Report and Order, MB Docket Nos. 19-193, 17-105, FCC 20-53 (rel. Apr. 23, 2020)(2020 Technical Report and Order).

LPFM stations provide a secondary, noncommercial radio service with a community focus. The Commission originally designed LPFM engineering requirements to be simple so that non-profit organizations with limited engineering expertise and small budgets could readily apply for, construct, and operate community-oriented stations serving highly localized areas. LPFM organizations suggested that the service has matured and requires additional engineering options to improve reception. Thus, the 2020 Technical Report and Order adopted the following rules: Allow expanded LPFM use of directional antennas. All LPFM stations may use directional facilities, with either off-the-shelf or composite antennas, upon a satisfactory engineering showing. Such antennas could improve service near international borders by allowing LPFM stations to serve more listeners in the United States while continuing to protect Mexican and Canadian stations.

Redefine “Minor Changes” for LPFM stations. An LPFM station may apply for approval to relocate its transmitter site without awaiting a filing window if the change is “minor,” redefined in the 2020 Technical Report and Order as a move of 11.2 kilometers or less. The 2020 Technical Report and Order also allowed proposals of greater distances to qualify as minor if the existing and proposed service contours overlap.

Permit LPFM Use of FM Booster Stations. FM booster stations amplify and retransmit a station's signal. The 2020 Technical Report and Order amended rules that had prohibited LPFM stations from operating booster stations, allowing LPFM stations to operate an FM booster in lieu of an FM translator when a booster would better address unique terrain challenges.

Allow Shared Emergency Alert System (EAS) Equipment. Co-owned, co-located radio stations can share EAS equipment, but this option was not available to LPFM stations because they cannot be co-owned. The 2020 Technical Report and Order permitted co-located LPFM stations (particularly those in time-share arrangements) to share an EAS decoder pursuant to an agreement for common access as well as common responsibility for any EAS rule violations, thus potentially reducing costs.

Facilitate Waivers of Requirement to Protect Television Stations Operating on Channel 6. Stations on the part of the FM band reserved for NCE use must currently protect adjacent television stations on Channel 6 (TV6). The 2020 Technical Report and Order deferred to a future proceeding consideration of a proposal to eliminate the protection of digital television stations operating on TV6. The 2020 Technical Report and Order stated that until such a proceeding is resolved, the Commission will accept FM proposals that are short-spaced to TV6 if the FM applicant demonstrates no interference. Alternatively, the 2020 Technical Report and Order added language to the rules allowing reserved band radio stations to provide an agreement indicating the concurrence of all potentially affected digital TV6 stations.

Miscellaneous Changes. The 2020 Technical Report and Order added language to 47 CFR 73.850 requiring LPFM stations to notify the Commission if they are silent for ten days and to seek authority for silent periods over 30 days, as required for all other broadcasters, thus codifying a longstanding policy that the Bureau already applies to the LPFM service that allows it to identify and assist LPFM stations at risk of losing their licenses automatically under section 312(g) of the Communications Act. The 2020 Technical Report and Order also made several non-substantive changes to remove duplicative and out-of-date information.

Specifically, pertaining to this Information Collection and LPFM stations, the Commission is revising the relevant rules, 47 CFR 73.816, 73.850, and 73.870, the form, and corresponding instructions, as follows:

(1) Adding an Antenna Type question in the Technical Certifications Section of the form, requiring the applicant to describe the proposed antenna type (directional or non-directional). Applicants proposing a directional antenna (as now permitted by section 73.816) must complete a data table, providing relative field values for every 10 degrees on the unit circle.

(2) Modifying section 73.850 to clarify that LPFM stations must, like other broadcast stations, notify the Commission if they temporarily stop broadcasting. The rules require radio stations to notify the Commission within 10 days of temporarily discontinuing operations and to obtain Commission authorization if the discontinued operations last beyond 30 days.

(3) Redefining the types of LPFM facility changes that qualify as “minor” (in section 73.870), to provide additional flexibility for LPFM stations to relocate their facilities.

The revisions to the relevant rules, and the changes to the questions in Schedule 318 listed above affect the substance, burden hours, and costs of completing the Schedule 318. Therefore, this submission was made to OMB for approval of revised Information Collection requirements.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0932.

OMB Approval Date: October 7, 2020.

OMB Expiration Date: October 31, 2023.

Title: FCC Form 2100, Application for Media Bureau Audio and Video Service Authorization, Schedule E (Former FCC Form 301-CA); 47 CFR Sections 73.3700(b)(1)(i)-(v) and (vii), (b)(2)(i) and (ii); 47 CFR Section 73.6028; 47 CFR Section 74.793(d).

Form No.: FCC Form 2100, Schedule E (Application for Media Bureau Audio and Video Service Authorization) (Former FCC Form 301-CA).

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

Number of Respondents and Responses: 745 respondents and 745 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 2.25 hours-6 hours.

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

Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 157 and 309(j) as amended; Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Public Law 112-96, 6402 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(8)(G)), 6403 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 1452), 126 Stat. 156 (2012) (Spectrum Act) and the Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999.

Total Annual Burden: 6,146 hours.

Annual Cost Burden: $4,334,902.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

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

Needs and Uses: FCC Form 2100, Schedule E (formerly FCC Form 301-CA) is to be used in all cases by a Class A television station licensee seeking to make changes in the authorized facilities of such station. FCC Form 2100, Schedule E requires applicants to certify compliance with certain statutory and regulatory requirements. Detailed instructions on the FCC Form 2100, Schedule E provide additional information regarding Commission rules and policies. FCC Form 2100, Schedule E is presented primarily in a “Yes/No” certification format. However, it contains appropriate places for submitting explanations and exhibits where necessary or appropriate. Each certification constitutes a material representation. Applicants may only mark the “Yes” certification when they are certain that the response is correct. A “No” response is required if the applicant is requesting a waiver of a pertinent rule and/or policy, or where the applicant is uncertain that the application fully satisfies the pertinent rule and/or policy. FCC Form 2100, Schedule E filings made to implement post-auction channel changes will be considered minor change applications.

Class A applications for a major change are subject to third party disclosure requirement of Section 73.3580, which requires local public notice that the application has been accepted for filing. Notice is given by an applicant posting notice of the application filing on its station website, its licensee website, its parent entity website, or on a publicly accessible, locally targeted website, for 30 consecutive days beginning within five business days of acceptance of the application for filing. The online notice must link to a copy of the application as filed in the Commission's LMS licensing database.

On May 12, 2020, the Commission adopted Amendment of Section 73.3580 of the Commission's Rules Regarding Public Notice of the Filing of Applications; Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative; Revision of the Public Notice Requirements of Section 73.3580, Second Report and Order, MB Docket Nos. 17-254, 17-105, & 05-6, FCC 20-65 (rel. May 13, 2020). The Commission adopted new, streamlined procedures for stations to provide public notice of the filing of certain applications. Stations, including Class A television stations filing for new construction permits or major modifications to facilities, that were previously required to post public notice in a local newspaper, must now post notice online, either on the station website or a website affiliated with the station, its licensee, or its parent entity, or else must post notice on a publicly accessible, locally targeted website, for 30 continuous days following acceptance of the application for filing.

This submission was made to OMB for approval of the modified third-party disclosure requirements for this Information Collection, as adopted in the 2020 Public Notice Second Report and Order. The changes pertaining to this Information Collection and to 47 CFR 73.3580 adopted in the 2020 Public Notice Second Report and Order do not necessitate changes to the Form 2100, Schedule E, nor do they affect the substance, burden hours, or costs of completing the forms. The rule changes do, however, reduce burdens and costs associated with filing the application.

OMB Control Number: 3060-1133.

OMB Approval Date: October 7, 2020.

OMB Expiration Date: October 31, 2023.

Title: Application for Permit to Deliver Programs to Foreign Broadcast Stations (FCC Form 308); 47 CFR Sections 73.3545 and 73.3580.

Form No.: FCC Form 308.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 26 respondents; 48 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.5 hours-2 hours.

Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in Section 325(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 40 hours.

Annual Cost Burden: $18,642.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: In general, there is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

Needs and Uses: On May 12, 2020, the Commission adopted Amendment of Section 73.3580 of the Commission's Rules Regarding Public Notice of the Filing of Applications; Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative; Revision of the Public Notice Requirements of Section 73.3580, Second Report and Order, MB Docket Nos. 17-254, 17-105, & 05-6, FCC 20-65 (rel. May 13, 2020). The Commission adopted new, streamlined procedures for stations to provide public notice of the filing of certain applications. Stations, including stations filing FCC Form 308, that were previously required to post public notice in a local newspaper, must now post notice online, either on the station website or a website affiliated with the station, its licensee, or its parent entity, or else must post notice on a publicly accessible, locally targeted website, for 30 continuous days following acceptance of the application for filing.

This was made to OMB for approval of the modified third-party disclosure requirements for this Information Collection, as adopted in the 2020 Public Notice Second Report and Order. The changes pertaining to this Information Collection and to 47 CFR 73.3580 adopted in the 2020 Public Notice

Second Report and Order do not necessitate changes to FCC Form 308, nor do they affect the substance, burden hours, or costs of completing the forms. The rule changes do, however, reduce burdens and costs associated with filing the application.

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

The D season allowance of the 2020 total allowable catch (TAC) of pollock in Statistical Area 620 of the GOA is 6,739 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2020 and 2021 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (85 FR 13802, March 10, 2020).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Regional Administrator has determined that the D season allowance of the 2020 TAC of pollock in Statistical Area 620 of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 6,639 mt and is setting aside the remaining 100 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 620 of the GOA.

While this closure is effective the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 679, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

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, as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 620 of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of October 19, 2020.

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

The D season allowance of the 2020 total allowable catch (TAC) of pollock in Statistical Area 620 of the GOA is 6,739 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2020 and 2021 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (85 FR 13802, March 10, 2020).

NMFS closed directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 620 of the GOA under § 679.20(d)(1)(iii) on October 20, 2020 through a separate notice in the Federal Register .

As of October 23, 2020, NMFS has determined that approximately 900 metric tons of pollock remain in the D season allowance for pollock in Statistical Area 620 of the GOA. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.25(a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(i)(C), and (a)(2)(iii)(D), and to fully utilize the D season allowance of the 2020 TAC of pollock in Statistical Area 620 of the GOA, NMFS is terminating the previous closure and is reopening directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 620 of the GOA, effective 1201 hours, A.l.t., October 27, 2020.

The Administrator, Alaska Region (Regional Administrator) considered the following factors in reaching this decision: (1) The catch of pollock in Statistical Area 620 of the GOA and, (2) the harvest capacity and stated intent on future harvesting patterns of vessels in participating in this fishery.

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 679, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

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, as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the opening of directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 620 of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of October 23, 2020.

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

The D season allowance of the 2020 total allowable catch (TAC) of pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA is 9,070 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2020 and 2021 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (85 FR 13802, March 10, 2020).

NMFS closed directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA under § 679.20(d)(1)(iii) on October 6, 2020 (85 FR 64070, October 9, 2020).

As of October 22, 2020, NMFS has determined that approximately 740 metric tons of pollock remain in the D season allowance for pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.25(a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(i)(C), and (a)(2)(iii)(D), and to fully utilize the D season allowance of the 2020 TAC of pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA, NMFS is terminating the previous closure and is reopening directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA, effective 1200 hours, A.l.t., October 27, 2020 through 1200 hours, A.l.t., October 29, 2020.

The Administrator, Alaska Region (Regional Administrator) considered the following factors in reaching this decision: (1) The catch of pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA and, (2) the harvest capacity and stated intent on future harvesting patterns of vessels in participating in this fishery.

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 679, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

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, as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the opening of directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of October 22, 2020.